[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 98 (Wednesday, June 8, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2859-S2861]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Gun Safety

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, when the Senate considers complex and 
profound issues of public policy, I am particularly reminded of the 
wisdom of our late friend, Mr. Mike Enzi, the Senator from Wyoming. Not 
long after I came to the Senate, I noticed how productive that Senator 
Enzi, one of the most conservative Members of the Senate, was working 
on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee with Teddy 
Kennedy, the ``liberal lion of the Senate.'' You had one of the most 
conservative Members of the Senate working with one of the most liberal 
Members of the Senate. But, amazingly, to me, they seemed to get a lot 
done.
  So I asked Senator Enzi, I said: How is it that you, a staunch 
conservative, could work so productively with somebody with such 
different views? Senator Enzi told me: It is easy. I call it the 80-20 
rule.
  Well, the fact of life is we are not going to agree with everybody 
100 percent of the time. And I sometimes say I don't agree with my wife 
100 percent of the time, but she is always right.
  But, seriously, if we are going to get things done here in the U.S. 
Senate for the benefit of the American people, we have to understand 
nobody is going to get everything they want. And I think for purposes 
of simplicity, an illustration of Senator Enzi's comments about the 80-
20 rule are very helpful.
  I have tried to employ that strategy many times since those days, and 
I hope we can apply that wisdom and strategy again dealing with this 
recent string of shootings, including Uvalde, TX.
  Now this debate evokes strong emotions and strong opinions from 
people across the political spectrum, and it is an understatement to 
say that there are serious differences of opinion.
  I start with the premise that I took an oath to uphold and defend the 
Constitution of the United States, and I

[[Page S2860]]

have no intention of violating that oath. That is where I start. Part 
of the Constitution is the amendments, including the first 10 which are 
the Bill of Rights that includes the Second Amendment, which provides a 
constitutional right to keep and bear arms for law-abiding Americans. I 
have no intention of violating my oath, and I have no intention of 
undermining the rights of law-abiding gun owners in America because it 
is a constitutional right.
  It is no secret that when it comes to the culture in America, there 
are very different views ranging from, let's say, Connecticut, where 
Senator Murphy comes from, to places like Texas, where guns are 
commonplace but people know how to use them and they use them 
responsibly and they are not a threat to public safety.
  There are those who would like to restrict the rights of law-abiding 
gun owners because that is their view--they strongly hold that view, 
but I have been clear that is a nonstarter for me.
  But to Senator Enzi's wise advice, rather than focus on the 20 
percent we can't agree on, I have been trying to explore common ground 
with our colleagues on a bipartisan basis. These were devastating 
tragedies. We all agree with that. We all agree that no child should 
ever fear for his or her safety while sitting in a classroom.
  I think we even all agree that there is a mental health epidemic in 
America today, and that is a piece of the puzzle. To me the shootings 
are a symptom of a larger problem, which is the failure of our mental 
health system in America, and it manifests itself in many different 
ways. Now, people suffering from mental health challenges, by and 
large, they are not violent, but a subset of them threaten their own 
lives with suicide. Some of them, even a subset of others, not only 
commit suicide by attacking a known armed police contingent, but they 
also engage in homicides, too, which is what happened with Salvador 
Ramos in Uvalde, TX.

  I think there is a consensus in America that criminals and people 
experiencing severe mental health crises should not have access to 
guns. It is not just my opinion; it is actually the law. That is what 
the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is supposed to 
vet for--to make sure that people who have criminal records, people who 
have been institutionalized for mental health problems, people who are 
dishonorably discharged, people who are under a protective order, 
people who have committed felonies, people who have committed domestic 
violence, those are all people who now, if you went to buy a firearm 
and underwent a national instant criminal background check, you would 
not be able to legally purchase or possess a firearm because that is 
the law of the land and has been a long time.
  With that in mind, Senator Murphy from Connecticut, Senator Tillis 
from North Carolina, Senator Sinema from Arizona, and I have been 
looking at these various factors and tried to come up with a targeted 
bill that might have prevented some of these tragedies. To me, that is 
the best way to look at this, is to say: If this had been in place, is 
it less likely that this tragedy would have occurred? Stated another 
way, If we do this, is there a chance or a probability that we could 
save lives in the future? To me, that should be our focus.
  Instead of wasting time talking about what we don't agree on, I think 
it is productive for us to focus on this subset of issues where I 
believe there is room for a consensus because, of course, that is the 
only way to make progress and to get a result.
  When the Constitution was written, it created three branches of 
government; but in particular, the legislative and the executive 
branch, with two branches of the Congress. They are very different in 
their nature. They made it difficult to pass legislation. It is hard. 
We do it, but it is hard. And it is hard because it takes consensus, 
and consensus sometimes takes time, particularly on issues that evoke 
such strong views and opinions and reflect, frankly, the diversity of 
this country.
  I am glad to say, on this topic, we are making steady progress. It is 
early in the process, but I am optimistic where things stand right now. 
What am I optimistic about? I am optimistic that we could pass a bill 
in the Senate, it can pass the House, and it will get a signature by 
President Biden. It will become law of the land.
  What is the test of that legislation? It is, to me, not whether it 
meets your ideological standard of what the bill should look like, but 
it is simply this: Will it save lives? If it will, it is worth all of 
our best efforts.
  As I said, there is broad agreement about the mental health 
challenges, not only in our schools, but in our society at large and 
how that manifests itself. Sixty percent of the gun deaths in America 
are suicides. Don't we want to try to prevent those suicides? I think 
so. That is why the mental health issue is so important, among other 
reasons. And then, obviously, the school safety issues. We need to try 
to figure out ways to make our schools harder to get into for people 
like Salvador Ramos.
  Unfortunately, the mental health challenges of young, disaffected, 
and alienated boys is a profile that is all too familiar. It is 
reflected in the shooter in Uvalde. It is reflected in the shooter in 
Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza. They came from much different places in terms 
of their socioeconomics, but in terms of their alienation and their 
developing mental illness and their willingness to not only take their 
own life but other people's lives, unfortunately, it paints an eerily 
similar picture.
  The shooter in Uvalde was isolated and bullied at school. He had a 
record of cutting his face--self-mutilation--and abusing and torturing 
animals, and he was known for fighting and threatening his fellow 
students with everything from assault to rape. He was a ticking time 
bomb, and many people--not all the people but many people in this small 
community of 15,000 people knew it. Certainly, his mother knew it. 
Unfortunately, his mother was a drug user, and he was living with his 
grandmother. But this is a young man who shot his own grandmother 
because she wanted him to go back to school because, of course, he had 
been out of the classroom because of COVID-19 restrictions. Frankly, 
that isolation just made his mental illness that much worse.
  As I said, the shooter at Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza, experienced what 
was later described as ``severe and deteriorating'' mental health 
problems that went untreated, not because his parents didn't try--they 
did--but when he was prescribed medication to help him manage his 
mental illness, he refused to take it, and his mom finally gave up, 
exhausted, as you can imagine. It was a period of 3 years that he 
didn't see any mental health provider at all, sitting in his room, 
playing video games, killing people online virtually, becoming 
increasingly desensitized, and spiraling down that psychiatric, 
psychological, and emotional drain.
  We need to equip all of our young people in America with the 
resources and the assistance they need in order to manage their 
emotional and mental health struggles. I think that is part of what we 
need to do.
  School security, as I said, was also a glaring issue at Uvalde. The 
shooter was able to enter Robb Elementary School through a door that 
wasn't even locked. That is a problem. School districts need to be 
prepared for the worst-case scenario. They need to prepare for the 
worst and hope for the best. That means evaluating physical security, 
reviewing current protocols, developing best practices, and potentially 
adding or expanding the number of school resource officers. Those are 
law enforcement officers on campus.
  I think there is a lot of common ground on things we can agree on 
here--safer schools, better mental health resources, and coming up with 
additional assistance that will harden our schools and provide greater 
deterrence and protections for our students.
  The Senators whom I have been talking to--including the group of four 
but even the larger group today at noon--we have been talking about 
other things we might do to keep individuals who are already prohibited 
by law because they have a criminal background or they have mental 
health adjudications and problems.
  How do we keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who are 
undergoing mental health crises? That is an area of common ground. This 
is not about creating new restrictions on

[[Page S2861]]

law-abiding citizens; it is about ensuring the system we already have 
in place works as intended.
  One idea we have discussed is, because this young man in Uvalde 
turned 18 and because there was no look back at his juvenile record, he 
passed a background check. It is as if he was born on his 18th birthday 
and nothing that happened before was important. That is obviously a 
problem. So we are looking at taking steps to encourage States to 
upload juvenile records into the National Instant Criminal Background 
Check System. This is standard practice in some but not most States, 
and it is easy to see why it is important. If we are uploading 
information about adults' mental health adjudications but we don't have 
access to juveniles' mental health adjudications, to me, that is a 
problem. If a 17-year-old, for example, is convicted of aggravated 
assault, the record should show up in his background check if he tries 
to purchase a gun when he turns 18.
  I think this is a commonsense way to make sure the National Instant 
Criminal Background Check databases are complete and they are accurate. 
That is not about expanding the system; that is about making sure the 
system we have actually works.
  I want to make sure that we are committed to providing due process 
protections for citizens in all circumstances. Again, this is part of 
our Constitution, due process of law--the right to appear, the right to 
contest a decision by the government and to produce evidence and to 
cross-examine witnesses. That is an essential aspect of due process. 
When you talk about depriving somebody of a constitutional right, it is 
even more important.
  The goal here is to make a law; it is not to make a political 
statement. As I said, I am encouraged by the progress we are making, 
but I don't think artificial deadlines are useful. The majority leader, 
Senator Schumer, has threatened to schedule votes if an agreement isn't 
reached by a certain time. I don't think that is particularly helpful.
  Again, my goal and I think most Senators' goal here is to come up 
with a bill that can pass; otherwise, we might as well move on to other 
topics. But I sense a feeling of urgency and a desire to actually get 
things done. Around here, if you know people have the will, there is a 
way, and I believe there is a collective bipartisan will. So far, 
everybody, I believe, has been working in good faith. We all understand 
the differences that we have regionally and culturally when it comes to 
things like the Second Amendment. We understand the different politics 
in different States. That is the genius of the Senate that brings us 
all together. It doesn't make it easy, but it makes it possible for us 
to try to find some common ground.
  The most common cry you hear today when it comes to incidents like 
Uvalde is to do something. I think we agree with that, but what that 
something is is not easy, but it is important, and we need to try. 
Again, I am optimistic because of the progress we have made so far that 
we will do something here that is important that will save lives. To 
me, that is the goal. And I think all 100 Senators would agree, if we 
can achieve that goal, then our efforts will have been worthwhile.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The clerk will call roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.