John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have at the desk a motion to instruct conferees, which I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this motion to instruct conferees for the Defense authorization bill is related to our reforms of the operation of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. It is no secret that China is weaponizing its investments in the United States to exploit national security vulnerabilities, including backdoor transfers of dual-use U.S. technology and related know-how. I am delighted to be working with Mrs. Feinstein, the Senator from California, on this issue. I thank our friend Senator Inhofe, who has taken a leadership role on the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Crapo for the unanimous vote on the Banking Committee. I yield to Senator Inhofe.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in the series be 10 minutes in length, and I yield back the remaining time.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this evening, the President of the United States will perform his duty and nominate a person to serve as the next Supreme Court Justice to fill the vacancy left by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced his retirement at the end of July. I look forward to joining the President this evening, along with a number of my colleagues, for that historic announcement. It is an important day because the person selected will help decide many cases that will have a deep and lasting impact on American history. Certainly, Justice Kennedy played that role many times in many close cases. There are a great many talented men and women who are qualified for Justice Kennedy's seat, I believe, and that is why the President's choice is so difficult. All of these candidates who have been identified as a potential pool of candidates have the intellectual capacity that has developed over many years, along with a rigorous understanding of the law. They have demonstrated their analytical skills in a variety of ways--by studying at top-tier law schools, clerking for well-respected judges on the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court, in their public speeches, in the courses they have taught, in the articles they have published, working at the highest levels inside government and prominent law firms, and, of course, in the case of the final four, serving on an appellate bench, which is the midlevel, intermediate Federal court which, for all practical purposes in most cases, is the court of last resort since the Supreme Court only hears roughly 80 or so cases a year. I know the President has considered a handful of these jurists. He revealed a list of potential appointees to the Court when he ran for President, and I think that probably was one reason why he was elected because when people saw the quality, the experience, and the qualifications of the individuals he said he would consider for the Supreme Court, I think it gave them greater confidence he would choose wisely, given the opportunity as President, to appoint somebody to the Court. These individuals who are in the pool of prospective nominees have come from different academic and professional backgrounds, but I have no doubt the selection will be a good one primarily because of the one appointment the President has already made to the Supreme Court, which is Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Gorsuch did not disappoint those of us who supported his nomination during his first year on the Court. He has demonstrated not only the power of his pen but the clarity of his thought and the force of his legal reasoning. I am sure his predecessor, Justice Scalia, would be proud of the fact Justice Gorsuch succeeded him on the Court and has left a record of accomplishments in such a short time. President Trump and Justice Gorsuch taught us all a valuable lesson last year. At the end of the day, the decisions of the Supreme Court should not be much affected by the personalities or the life stories of the Justices themselves. That is because the interpretation of the law should always be separate and apart from the people who apply it, and the Justices and their work must be insulated from the day-to-day politics that happen inside this Capitol Building and the statehouses around the country. The Court is not a partisan or political institution. After all, that is the way our Founders--the people who created this great country--and our Founding documents wanted it to be. Wisely, they figured there needed to be someone who would make a final decision in the event of a controversy or a lawsuit, but the Court itself should not put a finger on the scale or be a player in the partisan battles that occur here in Washington, DC. Indeed, the Court should be and is a separate and equal branch of government and must stand on its own, apart from the political biases and persuasions that pervade the District of Columbia. So I, along with many other people, am excited to hear the President's choice.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am a day late with the news, but Justice Anthony Kennedy, of course, announced he is leaving the bench at the end of the month, and I would be remiss if I didn't start my remarks this morning by thanking him for his 40- plus years of service to this country on the Federal bench. He has presided over and authored the majority opinion in many high- stakes cases of national importance. As the news has pointed out, after Sandra Day O'Connor left the Court, he has been that pivotal fifth vote in a lot of really significant cases, which is to say, you can't really typecast Justice Kennedy, but I do believe he has remained committed to upholding the integrity of the legal system throughout the course of his career. I can say, as a former State supreme court justice myself, I know the work he has been doing has been painstaking, time-consuming, and extraordinarily important all at the same time. So I express my gratitude, on behalf of my constituents, to Justice Kennedy for his willingness, ability, and determination to carry out that work. While serving on the Supreme Court for the last three decades, after having been appointed by President Reagan, he has furthered the pursuit of American justice, one case at a time, which is exactly what Justices are supposed to do, through calm times and politically turbulent times--perhaps, some might say, times like the present. He recognizes that our core institutions are essentially democratic institutions, answerable to the people through their elected representatives. While the Court has a unique role in interpreting the Constitution-- which is the fundamental bedrock law of the Nation--in cases that don't turn on the constitutionality of the statute, it is important to defer to decisions made by the elected representatives of the people because we are the ones accountable to the electorate for those decisions. Judges, by their nature, are not because they aren't elected. They don't run for election. So their fidelity is supposed to be to the law and not to a personal agenda or politics or any other agenda. Justice Kennedy was an important member of the Court that recognized an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment and recently upheld the President's prerogatives to protect national security. As Justice Kennedy concludes his term this next month, we, of course, wish him well, along with his wife Mary and their children, and we wish them many more happy--and, hopefully, a little less stressful--years together. Filling the Upcoming Supreme Court Vacancy Meanwhile, the Senate will conduct our constitutional role of offering our advice and consent on whomever President Trump nominates. As the senior Senator from Connecticut said yesterday, ``The Senate should do nothing to artificially delay'' consideration of the next Justice. I have heard conflicting views, but I agree with the senior Senator from Connecticut. This is consistent with the standard set by former President Obama and Vice President Biden. In 2010--which was a midterm election--Senate Democrats confirmed President Obama's nominee to the court, Elena Kagan. Before that, when he was a Senator, Joe Biden argued that Supreme Court nominees should not be confirmed during Presidential election years. So one was a midterm, Elena Kagan. Merrick Garland-- whom we will hear more about from our Senate Democratic colleagues-- came up during a Presidential election, a time during which Joe Biden said that nominees should not be confirmed in the runup to a Presidential election. After President Trump makes his selection, Senators will have the opportunity to meet with the nominee, examine his or her qualifications, and debate them. We will have a hearing under the Senate Judiciary Committee. This will be the sixth Supreme Court Justice nominee I will have had the privilege to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee for and question. Then, this fall, we will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy's successor. Justice Kennedy placed a deadline on his time in office. He is retiring July 31. So any idea of delaying this and leaving the Court shorthanded, particularly under these circumstances, really is beside the point. I know Chairman Grassley will, as usual, manage a fair, thorough, and efficient confirmation process. He always does. It is crucial that as this process begins to unfold, the President's nominee not be subjected to personal attacks from an increasingly agitated and vitriolic political base. My philosophy on the role of a judge is simple: Decisions should not be made on the basis of the judge's personal beliefs but from the analysis of legal doctrine and actual reading of the legal texts. The President, I believe, understands that. That is the sort of model out of which Neil Gorsuch's nomination came. That is also why we confirmed so many of his excellent choices in the 18 months of his administration. I look forward to another outstanding selection and a thorough and efficient confirmation process. Then, in the end, we will vote to confirm the President's nominee this fall. Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act Mr. President, on a separate note, yesterday, the White House released a statement from President Trump regarding an important piece of bipartisan legislation, which I introduced with the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, called the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act or FIRRMA. This concerns, as the Presiding Officer knows, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Our adversaries around the world have simply figured ways to game foreign investment in the United States to get access to intellectual property and the know-how to duplicate that property surreptitiously, taking advantage of the gaps in the Committee on Foreign Investment's jurisdiction. So we are updating that legislation. It passed unanimously out of the Banking Committee, passed then out of the Armed Services Committee, and now is a part of the Senate-passed Defense authorization bill. As President Trump mentioned, this bill will enhance our ability to protect the United States from new and evolving threats posed by foreign investment while, at the same time, preserving our ability to engage in international commerce and create new opportunities benefiting our economy and our people. Let me make clear, this is not to discourage foreign investment. I think foreign investment is a good thing, but when our adversaries look to exploit gaps and antiquated language in some of our statutes in order to gain unfair advantage and seek access to intellectual property in dual-use technology that has national security implications, we need to act, and that is what we have done. The President concluded that FIRRMA will provide much needed tools to combat the predatory investment practices that threaten our critical technology and national security. I think he is exactly right, and I am glad he pledged to implement FIRRMA promptly and enforce it rigorously once it is enacted into law. I wish to express my appreciation to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin--who is the convening authority of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States--and the entire Cabinet for their input and their support for what we are trying to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my remarks the statement in its entirety. I will read a couple paragraphs because it was pretty strong. The President of the United States said: Should Congress fail to pass strong FIRRMA legislation that better protects the crown jewels of American technology and intellectual property from transfers and acquisitions that threaten our national security--and future economic prosperity--I will direct my Administration to deploy new tools, developed under existing authorities, that will do so globally. What the President is saying, and what was reinforced by Secretary Mnuchin in my conversations with him, is the President is depending on this bipartisan legislation being enacted into law and providing the tools necessary to protect our national security. If Congress, for some reason, stumbles and fails to pass this legislation, the President has made clear he intends to act unilaterally to fill that void. I applaud the President and this administration for giving Congress a chance to work with the administration to fill this gap through a bipartisan, bicameral legislative process and to not just leap into that void and try to do it unilaterally, perhaps causing more confusion and less predictability. In conclusion, the President said: I applaud Congress on its progress toward passing robust FIRRMA legislation. I urge Congress to send me a strong bill as soon as possible and look forward to implementing it to protect America's security and prosperity. The Senate bill we passed takes a carefully tailored approach, and the House passed a similar version earlier this week by a vote of 400 to 2. I look forward to working with my colleagues throughout the Senate- House conference process to ensure the CFIUS review process is sufficiently strengthened and meets the goals that we and the President share.

Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I understand that the Democratic leader may be on his way, and I will yield the floor when he comes, but I do want to respond to the comments that have been made by my friend, the Senator from Illinois, the Democratic whip. I think what he is proposing is a false choice. He says we need to do away with zero tolerance when it comes to enforcing our immigration laws. Basically, what that means is an argument for the nonenforcement of our immigration laws. We can actually enforce our immigration laws and keep families together. Indeed, we have a proposal, which I know he is very familiar with, to do precisely that--proposed by Senator Tillis and Senator Cruz. I know he and Senator Feinstein are talking to them, and hopefully they can come up with a bipartisan solution. Yet the argument that somehow this is a new phenomenon is just not borne out by the facts. We all remember 2014, when the vast wave of unaccompanied children who came across the border from Central America was called a humanitarian crisis by President Obama. It was because we simply were not prepared to deal with the medical and other needs, feeding, housing, and taking care of these tens of thousands of children who were streaming across the border. Central America, basically, has some very serious problems which result in there being people who flee from those countries and seek, in many cases, asylum in the United States. Yet the idea that President Trump started something new when he decided to enforce the law or that this phenomenon of children coming across the border is something new is simply not the case. It has been happening for a long time. Back when President Obama was detaining families and was separating families, on some occasions when the accommodations were not available to deal with them together, we didn't hear a peep out of our friends on the other side of the aisle. When 1,500 unaccompanied children from Central America--those placed with sponsors here in the United States who were not American citizens, who were not even family members, and who had not had criminal background checks--were unaccounted for, as reported in a New York Times story recently, that was as a result of the flawed policies of the past in dealing with this humanitarian crisis. We do agree on one thing; that is, that families ought to be kept together, and the President has said as much. Yet what every single Democrat across the aisle has agreed to is a bill by our friend from California Senator Feinstein, which, simply goes from zero tolerance, when it comes to violating the immigration laws, to zero enforcement. What that bill would result in is a return to the flawed catch-and- release policies of the past because, if you can't enforce the law--if you don't have the immigration judges, if you don't prioritize these family cases--then you will have to give people notices to appear at some time in the future. Of course, most of them will not show up for their court hearings, and the cartels and human smugglers, whose business models depend on their ability to exploit these gaps in American law, will win. They will win because they will have successfully circumvented the enforcement of America's immigration laws. Those are the people who benefit the most from this. I am very sympathetic to the circumstances of these children and their families living in Central America, but as my colleague said, we simply can't accept anybody and everybody who wants to come to the United States under any and all circumstances. That is why we have a legal system of immigration. That is why we have due process to consider asylum claims, which should be considered and should be expedited, in my view, while these family units are detained, and not simply say that we are going to go from zero tolerance of immigration law violations to zero enforcement and return to a catch- and-release policy, which is associated with huge surges in additional illegal immigration. According to Manuel Padilla, the Rio Grande Border Patrol Chief, who I was with this last Friday, that is a big mistake. The American people understand that we need to enforce our immigration laws. They are as compassionate as we all would hope to be about keeping these families together as much as we can, but at some point we need to enforce our laws. In this case, that means family units need to be detained in a secure, safe, and humane facility, but then they need to present those claims to an immigration judge on a prioritized basis. If they don't meet the legal criteria, then we simply don't have any alternative but to return them to their home country. That is the law of the land. So 83 percent of the children in U.S. custody now came unaccompanied because their parents sent them from Central America by themselves. Only 17 percent came as part of a family unit. This is a longstanding problem, and we need to fix it. We have legislation that can do that, and we need to pass it this week in my view. I see the distinguished Democratic leader here.

Mr. CORNYN. Sure.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am sorry; I did not mean to suggest that the Senator from Illinois didn't object back then, but my point is that Senator Obama--President Obama had the same policies that are now being objected to under President Trump.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would respond to my friend from Illinois that I think alternatives to detention are a reasonable thing to look at, but the point is that people need to show up for their court hearings because right now, without detention, based on catch-and- release policies, these people simply fade away into the landscape and basically win the lottery when it comes to immigrating illegally to the United States without making a legitimate asylum claim. I would say on the representation issue that I certainly support pro bono legal counsel being allowed to represent the asylum seekers, and I believe that is the practice now. I would be reluctant to ask an American taxpayer to fund a lawyer for every immigrant who shows up at the border and makes a claim for an immigration benefit. I think that might be a bridge too far. But I do think that pro bono legal counsel makes a lot of sense. Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we all know, we are on the farm bill this week in the Senate. I express my gratitude to Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow for bringing us this far. Interestingly, in a town where differences tend to be along partisan lines and ideological lines, the differences in the farm bill tend to be largely regional as much as anything else, but they have done a good job in trying to bring a fair and equitable bill to the Senate floor. That is reflected by the near unanimous vote in committee for the bill. The farm bill has always been important. With its being renewed every 5 years, it helps to ensure that Americans and the people who benefit from American exports around the world enjoy access to the safest, cheapest, most reliable food source on the planet. The farm bill impacts many areas beyond food production. It promotes the conservation of farmland and watersheds. Foreign food aid programs are reauthorized as part of this bill, and we lay down the policy that affects the management of our Nation's forests. I am especially pleased with this year's farm bill and its impact on my home State and the Presiding Officer's home State of Texas. Among the most noteworthy provisions is protecting seed cotton eligibility for the farm bill safety net. This year's bill also retains and strengthens the Price Loss Coverage Program to help provide Texas agricultural producers with stability through unpredictable weather and natural disasters. Finally, the bill promotes animal health and reauthorizes disease research programs, including a crucial one that will help the U.S. Department of Agriculture provide research to contain the spread of the cattle fever tick. I doubt many people have heard of the cattle fever tick, but it is a real threat to our herds, our beef herds, and it has the potential to wipe out cattle herds and cause devastating financial losses. I want to highlight three areas where I do think the bill could stand some improvement--first, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. There is a lot of good done in the bill for farm and agricultural programs, but many people don't know that about 80 percent of the money spent in the farm bill is directed to so-called nutrition programs. So calling this a farm bill is a bit of a misnomer, since only 20 percent of its resources deal with farm and agriculture. So we need to consider targeted ways to ensure that tax dollars used to pay for these nutrition programs are used wisely. That is why I will support an amendment that expands work requirements for those who receive SNAP benefits. It is not just for work, but for people who are able-bodied who need to train for work or provide community service as condition of qualifying for this welfare benefit. My second related amendment will authorize a pilot program to encourage nongovernmental partners to help address food insecurity in local communities. While I salute Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow for attempting to ensure the integrity of our nutrition programs, I believe these amendments will further promote the goal we all share. The last one I will cosponsor with the junior Senator from Kansas, whose leadership I would like to commend, is one that addresses the wildfires we have had the last 2 years and the destruction these natural disasters have provided in farm country. I see the chairman of the Agriculture Committee on the floor, and I yield to him if he has a question he would like to ask.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and I appreciate his efforts to try to accommodate the concerns I have raised. Believe me, I understand this isn't his first rodeo. He has been down this path many times trying to come up with a farm bill that can get passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President of the United States, and that is no easy task. I would state on the work requirement for qualifying for the so- called nutrition program, I am aware of the fact that since these are Federal dollars, many States, even though they have the authority to impose some work or community service requirement, can waive that rather easily, since they are not spending their money; they are spending the Federal Government's money. So we are looking for ways to perhaps strengthen that provision. I hope we will have an opportunity to have a vote on it. My goal is to make sure we pass a farm bill, but I do think it is important that we demonstrate our commitment to protecting the Federal taxpayer and imposing modest work, preparation for work, or community service requirements on able-bodied people. I yield to the chairman.

Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate the chairman's comments, and I have confidence in him and his ability to manage this bill successfully across the floor. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.