John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 5 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 23, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 23, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on the judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 23, 2020, a 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. select committee on intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 23, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing. subcommittee on regulatory affairs and federal management The Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 23, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator would tell me, the JUSTICE Act that it sounds like the Democratic conference intends to block tomorrow includes the anti-lynching legislation that you and Senator Booker have championed; are you aware of that?

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, so the Senators are going to block their own anti-lynching bill by their vote tomorrow.

Mr. CORNYN. Would the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the Senator certainly is familiar with the rules of the Senate, which allow Senators to offer amendments to improve legislation once we get on it, but if the Democratic conference is going to prevent the Senate from actually getting on the bill, there is no opportunity for any Senator, you or any one of us, to offer amendments to improve it. I would further ask the Senator, aren't you aware of the fact that there are 60-vote thresholds on the back end so that if we get on the bill and you don't like the way it turns out, you can block it on the back end; is the Senator aware of those options you have?

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, may I ask one last question? Will the Senator yield? What I am trying to fathom is why the Senator would rather have these negotiations occur behind closed doors as opposed to here on the floor of the Senate with the American people to see broadcast on television? Don't you think that sort of interaction and debate and negotiation out in front of all 330 million Americans would be beneficial to healing our country and coming to some consensus about what the appropriate reforms should be?

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to complete my remarks before we recess for the lunch hour.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last several weeks, Americans have marched, protested, and demanded justice not just for George Floyd but for Breonna Taylor and a long list of individuals who, unfortunately, had been killed while in police custody. While the energy behind this movement is not new, the problems that created it are also not new. We know that the racial injustices that have existed for generations and that originated during our country's founding have created a whole range of problems that have continued to persist in our society--in everything from education, to healthcare, to housing. While I hope and expect we will have ongoing discussions about the most effective way to root out these inequalities and provide equal justice, which is our Nation's mantra and aspiration, one of the most important places to begin delivering these reforms is in our police departments. Across America, we have about 18,000 Federal, State, county, and local law enforcement agencies. Some of these agencies have one officer, and some have as many as 30,000. It is safe to say that a one- size-fits-all approach would not work for all of them. The policies and practices that make sense for the Houston Police Department, for example, are going to look a lot different than those of a small town out in West Texas. Yet there are basic practices and principles--best practices--that should be standard across the board, and they are something that Congress can help with. There are steps we can take to make our police forces more transparent, more accountable, and better trained so as to, hopefully, avoid encounters like we saw with George Floyd and the Minneapolis Police Department. While there are differences of opinion on the best way to deliver those changes, the good news--and there actually is good news--is that both Republicans and Democrats share this overarching goal. That is a strong start. A couple of weeks ago, our Democratic colleagues introduced their version of a police reform bill, and, last week, the Republicans introduced ours. While our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem interested in focusing on the differences, the truth is there is a whole lot in common, a whole lot of overlap. First are the changes in policing practices. As I mentioned, a one- size-fits-all approach isn't the right method, but in some areas, there is a clear need for uniformity. One great example is training. Many police departments already require deescalation training and give them an array of tactics to cool down a potentially dangerous encounter. Both Republicans and Democrats agree this should be the standard, and it is included in both bills. On the flip side, there are certain practices that should never be used, like choke holds. That is already the case in most major police departments--they ban choke holds. This bill ends that across the board. Reforming police practices is only part of the equation. In order to restore the broken trust between law enforcement and our communities, we need accountability, and these two bills take similar steps there too. They include a focus on diversity hiring so that police forces look a lot more like the communities they serve. They improve hiring practices so that departments can move to effectively weed out weak or bad candidates and ensure that we have the best possible talent among our men and women in blue. Both of these bills take steps to better educate officers on racial bias and the systemic challenges that face communities of color. They take steps to promote transparency and to give the public greater access to information about America's law enforcement activities. Both bills require public reporting on use of force and require better information on how law enforcement agencies are being run. They both prioritize relationship building between law enforcement and the communities they serve. While there are some differences in the methods of achieving these shared goals, that doesn't change the fact that we largely agree on the problems that exist, and that alone is not insignificant. Two weeks ago, Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, called on Leader McConnell to bring a police reform bill to the floor before July 4, and, tomorrow, we will do exactly what Senator Schumer requested. Now I hear that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle aren't interested in passing the JUSTICE Act as is, and I get that, but I have also been surprised by reports that suggest they may just block us from proceeding to the bill altogether, which, obviously, is not conducive to our passing any police reform bill. Speaker Pelosi has made comments that I view as encouraging. She said she is interested in going to conference between the House and the Senate on a police reform bill. It is clear that our colleagues in the House are willing to work with us to come up with a consensus bill, but that means the ball is now in the Senate Democrats' court. The way I see it, they have two options. One is to work with us on a bipartisan basis. If the Democrats vote tomorrow to begin debating the JUSTICE Act, we can spend time looking at all of the areas in which we have overlapping goals and nail down specific solutions, and we can do what the Senate was built to do, which is to be a forum for debate, for offering amendments, and for voting on those amendments, which would, hopefully, improve the product. If we are going to be successful in getting a bill to the President's desk and delivering on the reforms we are after, we have to get on the bill tomorrow. Option No. 2 is for the Democrats to do nothing--to tell the American people, even though they have said for weeks that they are desperate for action, that they themselves are the ones preventing that action. I think the choice is pretty obvious, and I can't imagine it is not obvious to our Democratic colleagues. These past several weeks have shone a light on the problems that exist within some of our police departments, and we have an opportunity to work together and show the American people we are capable of working together to try to address this national priority. We can officially begin this process with a simple ``yes'' vote here on the floor tomorrow. My simple request to our Democratic colleagues is to, please, please, work with us. Let's debate the bill and continue to try to find common ground, and let's get something we can be proud of on the President's desk that he can sign into law without there being any more delay. Over the last several weeks, the American people have marched, protested, and demanded action. This week, we have an opportunity to deliver the changes they are requesting and ensure that ``Equal Justice Under the Law'' is more than just a phrase engraved on the Supreme Court building across the street. I am proud of the work we have been able to do in working with Senator Scott, who has led our efforts in the Senate. I thank him and Senator McConnell for their commitment to taking action and for Senator McConnell's willingness to do precisely what Senator Schumer requested in getting a police reform bill on the floor of the Senate before July 4. We will have the opportunity tomorrow to begin debating the JUSTICE Act. I can only hope our Democratic colleagues will make the right decision and commit to working with us to deliver real reforms. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as we have been working over these last several weeks to develop police reform legislation, I figured the best use of my time would be to spend that time listening, as much as anything else--listening, for example, to Black Americans about their experiences with law enforcement and the changes they would like to see in our country; listening to my colleagues in the Senate about the most effective ways to make these changes, especially under the leadership of Senator Tim Scott, who has personally experienced the injustices we are trying to address, and, particularly, this deficit of trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve; and listening to leaders in Texas who are working hard--in the midst of this pandemic and widespread protesting--to keep every single Texan safe. You would think, before we decide on what reforms to take, it is important to hear from those who know best what is working, what isn't, and what we need to do more of. A few weeks ago, I called two of my friends, who happen to be the mayor of Dallas and the mayor of Houston, Eric Johnson in Dallas and Sylvester Turner in Houston, and asked them to help me pull together a group of people in both of those major American cities for an open conversation about these issues. Less than a week later, I was in Dallas for an open and honest conversation with a group of law enforcement, faith, and community leaders. They provided very useful feedback and ideas that I brought back with me while the JUSTICE Act was in draft form. After the bill was introduced last week, I was eager to hear from more folks in Texas. Last Friday, I traveled to Houston for another similar type of discussion at city hall. Like in Dallas, we were able to hear from a variety of points of view familiar with these challenges. I was glad to also be joined by Senator Cruz and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. In a way, I thought it was a coincidence, but maybe not, that this conversation happened on Juneteenth--a day that allows us to reflect on the progress we have made in the fight for equality. This year--I would say more than normal--it was a reminder of how far we have to go. At this point, I would like to say the good news is there is a lot of common ground and good will, and I think we have a unique opportunity to do what I told the Floyd family I would do when they told me they wanted Texas-size justice. I think some good can actually come out of this tragedy, their loss of their loved one. I heard an inspiring message from Bishop James Dixon, who is the pastor at Community of Faith Church and first vice president of the Houston NAACP. He talked about the need for unity and action in response to the widespread protests we are seeing and encouraged everyone, as he put it, to ``dignify the outcry.'' We need to affirm that, yes, there is a problem; yes, it has gone unaddressed for too long; and yes, we are going to do our best to do something about it. While there may be differences of opinion on the best route to take, the good news is we are all pulling in the same direction. During our conversation, I was able to talk briefly about the JUSTICE Act, which was introduced, as I said, last week. Among other things, they seemed to be pleased the bill would strengthen deescalation training, as well as training on the duty to intervene in case there is something inappropriate occurring, the use of body cameras, incentivizing the States to restrict the use of choke holds, and make lynching a Federal crime. I received some great feedback on how it will ensure that police departments nationwide are using proven best practices to keep our communities safe. As we prepare to debate this legislation this week, that conversation could not have been more timely. Another common theme--and I have heard this before--is the growing strain on our law enforcement officers. I remember several years ago Chief David Brown saying: We ask our police to do too much. Basically, they are the ones who we know will go quickly to a crisis and intervene, no matter what it is, whether it is a domestic crisis, a mental health crisis, or somebody breaking the law. Mayor Turner, in particular, talked about how the list of responsibilities we are giving our law enforcement officers keeps growing longer and longer and longer. They are not just fighting crime; they are responding to calls about drug abuse, mental health, domestic violence, homelessness, and a range of other crises. Between COVID-19 and the ongoing protests, their jobs are not getting any easier. As Police Chief Art Acevedo pointed out, police are performing these jobs not by design but because there is basically nobody else to do them--by default. There is no question we need more support services that can help alleviate some of this strain on our law enforcement officers. Over the years, we have tried to bolster services available for things like the First Step Act, which took prison reform from the State level to the national level. We put money into Project Safe Neighborhoods grants and Mental Health and Safe Communities Act grants. In particular, I remember when we debated the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act grants to help train law enforcement to deescalate conflicts between people undergoing a mental health crisis, during which an escalating level of crisis would be a threat not only to the individual who is undergoing that crisis but to the officer, him or herself. We actually found it to be very effective, this training. As this list of responsibilities we are giving our law enforcement officers has grown, so has the need for additional training and additional funding for support services--ancillary services that can work in conjunction with our law enforcement officials so we can get the most efficient, most effective response to the person who needs it. That is precisely why defunding the police is not the answer to the challenges we are facing. It is really an insult, if you think about it, and it is living in a fantasyland. Chief Acevedo shared an analogy a fellow police chief and friend of his made about the effort to shift responsibility from police to other providers. He said: If you are building a new stadium, you wouldn't tear down or stop using the old one until the new one was complete. If cities strip funding from their police departments without having other support services in place, our communities wouldn't be more safe; they would be significantly less safe. So rather than cutting funding while those services are being established and strengthened in cities across the country, let's talk about the reforms that make sense. The most impactful reforms are going to be made at the State and local levels. We can't be a city council for 330 million people. Those responsibilities, ultimately, are born at the local and State level. They are the ones accountable to the voters for the actions they take or don't take at the local level, but we know there is a role for us to play. Much of it has to do with identifying things like best practices, as well as providing money for training and resources. The hiring is done at the local level, officer training is conducted there, and decisions about day-to-day police activities are made there. During our discussion, Mayor Turner expressed the need for folks in Congress to listen to mayors, and I am all for that. For any law we pass or reforms we make, they will be the ones responsible for implementing the changes we make. I have been in close contact with my mayors and other officials across the State, and I don't intend for that to stop once we, Lord willing, pass a police reform bill. This has to be an ongoing conversation between local officials, State officials, and those of us who happen to work here in Washington in the Congress. This conversation is not going to be a brief one. It is not going to be a one-time conversation. This is going to stretch on for weeks and months. Really, what we are talking about is a cultural change as much as anything else. I want to, once again, thank the men and women in Texas who wear the uniform of our police departments and those who shared with me their ideas and feedback over the last few weeks. It has been incredibly valuable and will become even more helpful as we begin debating the JUSTICE Act this week. Senator Scott, who is leading us on this legislative effort, has done a great job of compiling a broad set of reforms that will improve transparency and accountability. Many of these provisions, as I said a few minutes ago, already enjoy broad bipartisan support. This legislation, I believe, will go a long way to improve accountability and transparency and deliver real change to communities across the country. I am glad that at Senator Schumer's request, Senator McConnell put a bill on the floor before the Fourth of July. That is specifically what Senator Schumer called for and exactly what Senator McConnell said he intends to do. Now that we have the opportunity to turn talk into action, it does sound like our friends across the aisle are getting cold feet. I have been interested to read in the press where some of them said they haven't really made up their mind whether they will even allow us to get on the bill. We can't pass a bill that we can't start. Once we start it, they will be given every opportunity to offer amendments to help improve the bill. But shutting it down just out of a fit of pique or overt politicalization does not do a service to the people we are trying to help here: to help our law enforcement officials and to help the general public and people who sense a gap of trust between those officers and the law enforcement community they serve. Our Democratic colleagues are weighing whether to block us from even considering this bill, one that will be put on the floor, debated and voted on, just as Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, requested. Unfortunately, our friends across the aisle seem focused more on the few differences between Senator Scott's bill and the House bill rather than the similarities. This is where I think the 80-20 rule ought to apply. If we can agree to 80 percent or 70 percent or 60 percent, why don't we do that? Why don't we put that in the bank and work on the rest? The truth is, there are many places where these bills overlap, and there is a lot of room for us to find common ground. In order to do that, our colleagues across the aisle need to do what maybe is not their first instinct and that is to cooperate--that is the only way we get things done here--and prove to the American people that they are sincere in their desire to see us debate and pass effective reforms. There is a difference between doing that and just grandstanding and posturing, but this is not a time to grandstand. This is not a time to posture. This is a time to roll up our sleeves and work together to get things done. We need realistic, resolute, and immediate action in order to repair that broken relationship between law enforcement and some of the community they serve. So I hope our Democratic colleagues will join us in that effort this week. I appreciate, for one, the hard work and leadership of Senator Scott in drafting this legislation, and I appreciate the majority leader, Senator McConnell, for prioritizing its consideration on the floor. I am a proud cosponsor of the JUSTICE Act, and I look forward to voting for this bill when the opportunity comes. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, 8 years ago almost to the day, President Obama announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival, otherwise known as DACA. At the time, I remember the conversations a number of us had with President Obama, saying please give us a chance to work this out by passing appropriate legislation in the Congress. He heard those pleas, but in spite of the fact of saying numerous times he did not have the authority to do so, he proceeded to issue a memorandum that gave rise to the DACA program. Rather than rolling up our sleeves and working together to create lasting immigration policy, President Obama chose to do this through an Executive memorandum. It is that Executive memorandum that has made its way through the courts over the last 8 years and finally to the U.S. Supreme Court. Unfortunately, this is the bitter fruit of what President Obama did when he attempted to usurp Congress in a way to provide certainty and comfort to hundreds of thousands of young people--a goal that we all share--but to do so in a way that ultimately created more harm. It sent them on a years' long tumultuous journey, which is not over with the Supreme Court decision today. Basically, what the Supreme Court said was, under the Administrative Procedure Act, he didn't do it the right way, so go back and try it again and get it right this time. Well, I think these young people deserve better. The debate over President Obama's authority has held these individuals hostage, leaving them wondering if they might ultimately be deported to a country they have no memory of and forced to leave their families, their jobs, and the opportunities they have worked so hard to build here in the United States behind. Make no mistake about it, today the Supreme Court ruled that the Department of Homeland Security didn't follow the proper procedures to rescind the DACA program and thus allowed the program to continue for now, but this is just a temporary measure. DACA recipients must have a permanent legislative solution. They deserve nothing less. These young men and women have done nothing wrong. They came to the United States as children, and in America, we don't hold children responsible for the mistakes of their parents, in this case, the mistake of not going through the legal immigration process. So these kids--young people, I should say--are innocent. Texas is home to more than 100,000 DACA recipients who are a vital part of our communities. They have grown up with our kids, attended the same churches, shopped at the same stores, and defended our freedoms in the U.S. military. Many of these young people are in their 30s now with careers, families, plans, hopes and dreams of their own. So the uncertainty about their status and what will happen to them is no less terrifying for them than it would be for any of us. It is simply unfair for these young people who, again, through no fault of their own, find themselves in this situation to rely solely on an Executive memorandum instead of a law passed by Congress. I believed that when President Obama rejected our request to work with Congress and come up with a permanent solution, and I believe it now. I believe the Supreme Court has thrust upon us a unique moment and an opportunity. We need to take action and pass legislation that will unequivocally allow these young men and women to stay in the only home in the only country they have ever known. In the past, I have supported a number of bills that would have allowed these individuals to remain in the United States without the fear of a court decision hanging in the balance, but each time, partisan disagreements have prevented us from turning anything into law. When it comes to immigration laws, Congress, on a bipartisan basis, never fails to fail. Well, I hope we can all agree, given this opportunity, that it is not time for politics as usual, but it is time to provide some certainty, some compassion, some support for these young men and women. After years of being yanked around from courtroom to courtroom, these young men and women deserve that certainty. They deserve to know that, when they apply to college, grow up with their families, live their lives, and do all the things everybody else wants to do, that they can do so without a dark cloud hanging over their plans. But, as usual, in order to come up with any solution, it is going to take buy-in from the Senate, House, and White House. I have been having conversations for years about this topic, but most recently, I have been having conversations about the most efficient and effective way to protect these young people in the long-term, and I am willing to work with anyone, Republican or Democrat, who is interested in solving the problem--not grandstanding, not posturing, not acting like you care when you really don't, elevating politics over a solution. I am not interested in that. If anyone is interested in solving the problem and providing support for these young people, I am all in. Over the years, I have engaged with the Texas Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, LULAC, Catholic bishops, and a number of other individuals and organizations that share my commitment to providing certainty for these young people. I hope we can come together and help them. These folks want nothing more than to continue to be part of the American dream. I hope we can deliver

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as the Nation discusses the need for police reforms, our work in the Senate to deliver those reforms is ramping up. This afternoon, the Judiciary Committee, on which the Presiding Officer and I serve, will be holding a hearing to examine the use of force and community relations. I am glad that our witnesses include two outstanding Texas witnesses--Erin Nealy Cox, the U.S. Attorney of the Northern District of Texas, and Chief Art Acevedo, Chief of the Houston Police Department and also the chair of the Major Cities Chiefs Association. I know they will be able to help shed some light on the changes that need to be made to restore trust between officers and the communities they serve, and I appreciate their willingness to share their perspectives with us. It is important, I believe, for us to hear from a variety of sources as we debate what those potential reforms might look like: those who represent law enforcement, community and faith-based organizations, and the men and women who get up every day and put on the uniform to protect us by serving in law enforcement agencies. We need to hear from all of them. In recent weeks, African Americans across the country have shared their experiences with law enforcement--stories we have heard of being profiled, discriminated against, targeted, and having a negative perception of law enforcement that even in dangerous situations they are afraid to call the police. Really, the way it was described in a meeting I had on Friday in Dallas by Chief Hall and Sheriff Brown is that they called it a wedge between law enforcement and some minority communities for lack of trust. John Crusoe, the district attorney, said because of the number of offenses for which minorities are arrested and prosecuted, it seemed to be disproportionate. They have the impression that somehow they are being targeted unfairly. We know that even our friend, Tim Scott, an African-American Senator, has said he knows what it is like to be driving while Black and to be stopped, where somebody who looks like me would not be stopped by the police. We need to work our way through this. We know that Black parents have spoken openly about their concerns for their own sons and daughters and that lessons that they have given them of what they should do if pulled over by the police: turning off the car, rolling down the windows, placing their hands on the dashboard, and explaining what they are doing before reaching in their pocket for their driver's license. Well, the lack of trust between law enforcement and our communities isn't unfounded, but it is unsustainable. In order for every American to not only be safe but feel safe, we need to enact long overdue reforms to our Nation's police departments. Mostly, these are not prescriptive in nature. These are in the realm of being an assistance to our law enforcement officials and not somehow assuming, as some do, that racial discrimination is rampant among law enforcement. I don't believe that. I don't believe that there is systemic racial discrimination in our law enforcement officers where they target minorities. I just don't believe that. I do believe there are some bad actors who abuse their power and violate even the status of their own police department. And, unfortunately, in the example of the officer who had his knee on the neck of George Floyd, we know that there have been 17 separate complaints made against him in their internal affairs division there, but, apparently, neither the police department nor the city leadership--the mayor and city council--did anything about it, or if they did, we have not yet learned about it. Well, we know that Senator Scott has been leading the effort in our conference to try to come up with a reasonable package of legislative responses, and it is really kind of surprising to me to see the overlap between the political parties and also our colleagues in the House. Now, there are some things that I don't think we should do. For example, there are some who call for reforming qualified immunity, a judicial doctrine that protects the discretionary acts of a government employee or government official and holds them financially responsible only if they violate an established standard. Well, the same legal doctrine that protects police officers protects school teachers as well, and I will bet that a number of our colleagues who are calling for wholesale reform of qualified immunity didn't even know that. Well, as I said, it is important that we hear from a variety of voices, and that is why I appreciate Mayor Johnson in Dallas hosting a roundtable with a group of law enforcement leaders and faith leaders who are committed to delivering real change. I spent a few minutes talking about what we are doing here in Washington, but I spent most of my time listening. I think that is something we need to do more of--to listen. We are all pretty good at talking, but we need to do more listening. Everyone agrees that there is a problem--a big one--that will not go away if we ignore it. As the mayor acknowledged, the fact that everyone agrees that the status quo is not sustainable represents progress in and of itself. That is the first step toward solving a problem-- recognizing that you have one. But now it is time to turn that consensus into collective action. We know that many of the changes that need to be made will happen at the local and State level. At the U.S. Congress, we have a Capitol Police, but we don't control what happens in the Minneapolis Police Department or the Dallas Police Department or San Antonio or any other locally run and controlled law enforcement agency. We know that they are not all the same. Most major law enforcement agencies, like the one in Dallas, have deescalation training. It has been mandatory for years. So when people talk about doing that and mandating it here from Washington, the fact is that most of our major law enforcement agencies are already doing a lot of these things, like banning choke holds, for example. One of the participants in our roundtable was Frederick Frazier, a longtime law enforcement officer who actually trains officers in deescalation. More recently, the Dallas Police Department banned choke holds, as I mentioned, and any use of force intended to restrict a person's airways. They have also embraced a policy requiring officers to intervene in a situation where use of force is unnecessary and inappropriate. For example, if a law enforcement officer sees another officer use excessive force or dealing with that use of force inappropriately, the Dallas Police Department requires the other officers who witnessed that to intervene--something we did not see happen in Minneapolis. During our discussion, Chief Hall also discussed steps they are taking to release body camera or dash camera footage and overall increased transparency. Similar changes are being made in cities across Texas and across the country, and I think transparency is an important area where changes can and should occur. A one-size-fits-all Federal approach to policing would be, I think, a mistake. But here in Washington, we do have a role to play. We have both the opportunity and the responsibility to ensure that America's police departments are helping public safety and are not considered to be a threat by the communities they serve. The bill being led by Senator Scott would take major steps in the right direction. While the final details are being ironed out, our discussions have included a range of proposals that would address everything from training to transparency, to minority hiring. I am not interested in passing a bill for the sake of just checking a box and saying we have done something significant. That route is sure to lead to even more problems. I am interested in delivering real reforms, as I am confident all of my colleagues here in the Senate are, and I think our legislative efforts can produce a product that will be responsive to the crisis we are now experiencing--a crisis largely of trust. Of course, for those changes to reach communities in Texas, they also need to be able to pass not only a Republican-controlled Senate but a Democratic-controlled House and be signed by President Trump, and I believe the legislation we will unveil tomorrow could deliver in each of those bodies. I think each of us has a responsibility to take action to repair and address the fear, the anger, and the lack of trust between law enforcement and our communities, and this bill does an important first step. I am proud to have worked with Senator Scott and all of our colleagues in this effort, and we all will make our contribution before we are through. I am looking forward to sharing those details tomorrow during the press conference. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks before the lunch recess.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, across America, people of all ages, races, and backgrounds have continued to show up on the streets to speak up and speak out against racial injustice. Of course, it is their right under the Constitution to do so. Galvanized by the tragic death of George Floyd, they are marching in peaceful protests, signing petitions, and having frank discussions with their families. It is a moment characterized by heartbreak and anger over the injustices that many Black Americans feel are perpetrated on them every day, but it is also a time for hope for the future as the issue has come front and center. Frankly, we have to do something about it. In city halls, State legislatures, and, of course, here in the U.S. Capitol, there is a newfound sense of energy and urgency behind the effort to pass meaningful reform. We have an opportunity to create profound change in an area that, for too long, has just been a can kicked down the road, and I am optimistic we will succeed. I told the Floyd family when I talked to them before their son, their brother, was buried: My hope for you and my hope for all of us is that something positive will come out of this tragedy. Here in the Senate, we are working on legislation to respond to these events, and the majority leader has tasked our friend and colleague from South Carolina, Senator Tim Scott, to lead the effort in our conference. I am proud to have been working with him closely--and several other colleagues--to draft legislation that I think will help us begin the first step down that path and support America's police forces. As we work through potential policies, it is important to hear feedback from my constituents back home, and last Friday I had the chance to do just that. I reached out to my friend, Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson, whom I have gotten to know pretty well during his first year as mayor. Whether it be Dallas tornadoes or the COVID-19 virus or, now, discussions about the George Floyd killing and racial injustice, we have found the opportunity to work together to support the people of Dallas through some incredibly difficult times. I asked him if he would help me convene a group of leaders in Dallas to discuss these issues, and by Friday we were all socially distancing around a large table in city hall in Dallas, TX. The mayor and I were joined by Police Chief Renee Hall, Dallas County Sheriff Marian Brown, Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot, as well as union, community, and faith leaders. We had a frank conversation about the challenges we are up against as we work to repair the broken trust between law enforcement and some of the communities they serve. I was able to spend some time talking about the work we are doing here in the Senate and the ideas that could be included in any legislation. I talked about two specific proposals that I have recommended--one being the establishment of a National Criminal Justice Commission. This Commission would review the criminal justice system from top to bottom and provide recommendations to us, something that has not happened at the national level since 1965. I also recommended taking steps to ensure more departments and agencies are providing deescalation training for their officers so, hopefully, officers will know how to use these tactics to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the first place. But mostly I was there to listen and to learn from the men and women with decades of experience in protecting, serving, and advocating for their communities. Chief Hall talked about how policing strategies had created a wedge between law enforcement and some of the minority communities and the work it is going to take in order to repair that trust and eliminate that wedge. She noted that Dallas is home to some of the best officers in the country and that the vast majority of them show up for work every day with all of the right intentions and attitude, but for the small number of officers who don't, we need to be able to identify them quickly and remove them from our police forces. Thinking about the officer who was directly responsible for George Floyd's death, according to published reports, he had at least 17 misconduct complaints already lodged against him. Now, that should be a red flag for anybody. In any tragedy, you can't help but go through the what-ifs and wonder how things might have played out differently. What if his supervisors had taken action? What if he had been fired? What if he hadn't been available to respond to the incident involving George Floyd because he was assigned to some other duties? Well, these are difficult questions to ask because the outcome likely would have been different, but they are the types of questions we need to ask in order to prevent history from repeating itself. The major theme of our conversation was trust: How do we restore communities' trust in law enforcement? Minister Sammie Barry from Dallas West Church of Christ made a great point about ensuring that police agencies reflect the diversity of the communities in which they serve. Texas is about as diverse a State as they come. Our cities are a vibrant blend of backgrounds, cultures, and skin tones, and our police departments should reflect that. That is one topic of discussion here in the Senate, one I hope we can act on in the coming weeks: How do we encourage police recruitment of the right people who can reflect the communities in which they serve? As Dallas County Sheriff Marian Brown said, we all recognize and acknowledge that we have a long way to go, and unfortunately there is no magic pill to help get us there. Instead, we are going to have to roll up our sleeves and do the hard work of trying to build consensus and solve problems. As always, the first step in the process is good communication. Honest and frank discussions between community leaders, law enforcement, and elected officials are a great start, but we are going to have to do a lot more than talk in order to create palpable change. I will be the first to admit I don't have all the answers. I don't think anyone else does either, but these conversations are key to helping each of us get closer to finding them. I want to thank Mayor Johnson and everyone who took time out of their busy schedules to participate in our discussion last Friday. These men and women have provided me with valuable insight and ideas about the changes that need to be made in order to restore public confidence in all of our law enforcement agencies. I have come back to Washington with new ideas based on their feedback, and I am eager to continue to work with all of our colleagues to deliver real reforms for the American people and restore that trust which, unfortunately, has been strained, if not broken, in some communities I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, since the death of George Floyd, the American people have once again been engaged in a passionate discussion about racial injustice, which has sadly existed throughout our Nation's history. In many ways, the killing of George Floyd was the match in the powder barrel. It ignited long-overdue conversations about prejudice and discrimination that still exists in homes, workplaces, and in particular, institutions charged with keeping us safe. There is no question that what happened to George Floyd was a failure of the Minneapolis Police Department. He was killed by police officers as one applied pressure to his neck and three others stood by and did nothing. We are going to leave that to the criminal justice system to make sure that the appropriate people are held accountable, but we are not off the hook. We have a responsibility, and we have experienced enough of these tragedies to know that it is not an isolated event. Black men and women and other minorities across the country have died in custody for doing things that do not warrant the use of deadly force. In the case of Breonna Taylor, who was killed in March, she was asleep in her home when plainclothes officers with a no-knock warrant used a battering ram to enter her apartment shortly after midnight. She was asleep in her apartment, and shortly after midnight--no knock--just a battering ram, and her door is knocked open. Thinking somebody had broken into her home, which was a reasonable reaction, Breonna's boyfriend, a licensed gun owner, fired at them. He thought they were under assault. The officers returned at least 20 shots, killing the 26- year-old emergency room technician. Unfortunately, as in too many of these cases, the officers who were responsible were never held responsible, and that needs to change. We are engaged in a discussion about how we can root out the injustices that exist in our criminal justice system. One terrible idea that has been floated is to defund or even disband the police. I can't even believe we have to talk about it, but we do because it has been proposed by a majority of the Minneapolis City Council members. Over the weekend, nine of them said they will begin the process of ending the Minneapolis Police Department. Well, I am amazed that we have to say it, but apparently we must. This is an extraordinarily reckless and dangerous path to go down. I was glad to see a number of our Democratic colleagues here in the Senate and over in the House reject such a crazy idea. I don't know how you can call it anything else. While it is clear that bold action is required, disbanding institutions charged with keeping us safe would do more harm than good. You would think that would be self-evident. If you have a leak in your roof that suddenly causes your ceiling in your kitchen to crash down, the solution isn't to eliminate your roof. Sure, it would guarantee you are never going to have a leak again, but it is going to open you up to a whole new host of problems that would do far more damage. Our job here is to fix the leak and figure out how to move forward. The process in this case isn't going to be quite so straightforward. Nationwide, we have some 18,000 Federal, State, county, and local law enforcement agencies. Some have 1 officer, while some have more than 30,000, so they are not all the same. The policies and procedures governing how the officers in each of these agencies interact with their community vary widely from one department to the next. By and large, that makes sense. If you are in Mayberry with Andy Taylor, it may be a two-police- officer town. Obviously, you can handle things a little differently than you can in a major metropolitan city like New York, Dallas, or Houston. That is why I believe that a one-size-fits-all approach does not make sense. We simply don't have the expertise, nor do we have the skill to try to write legislation that will treat 330 million people the same way. Yet there are policies and practices that we can promote as best practices, and that is actually where I think the Federal Government's role is irreplaceable. It is very important. We can do that and provide good guidance to the States and local authorities. One example is the chokehold. Chokeholds are already banned from a number of law enforcement agencies across the country but not all. In the past few weeks, State legislatures and city councils have taken action to ban this dangerous and controversial practice. I have no doubt more will follow suit. This is a great example of the type of action we can and should take in Washington to ensure America's law enforcement officers are helping, not hurting, the very people they are sworn to protect. In the Republican caucus, Senator Tim Scott is leading the charge to develop a package of bills that will make much needed and long-overdue reforms to our criminal justice system. We have done this before. We did it with the FIRST STEP Act, bringing State-proven remedies to prison reform and rehabilitation and safe reentry into society to the national scale. So we have done this before. I have been in close discussions with Senator Scott and Leader McConnell and a handful of other Senators who are interested in trying to come up with the most effective ways to create tangible change. This is not going to be a matter of political grandstanding; this is about practical problem-solving. It is certainly not going to be an effort just to serve as a political marker. I think there is actually enough common ground where we can do something constructive on a bipartisan, bicameral basis and get a Presidential signature on it. One provision in the list of provisions that Senator Scott is putting together involves legislation that has already received broad bipartisan support. This provision, which I recommended, included a bill that Senator Gary Peters, a Democrat from Michigan, and Senator Graham of South Carolina, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and I introduced and passed last year to create a National Criminal Justice Commission. I know sometimes people will say ``Well, creating another committee or another commission doesn't solve the problem,'' but this is not mutually exclusive. I think this is to supplement the other things we do here in the near term to come up with a comprehensive view of what we need to do in our criminal justice system to make it more fair and to make sure our law enforcement officers receive the best training and understand the best practices when it comes to community policing. This is based largely on the same model as the 9/11 Commission. You recall that after the 9/11 Commission--there were roughly 14 people appointed by the White House in both political parties here. They studied the vulnerabilities we had that led to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and made concrete recommendations to Congress that we took up and passed. I think that is a sensible way for us to approach the problems with our criminal justice system writ large. It could include things like policing reform. That is an obvious one given the concerns of the day, but it doesn't have to be limited to just that. We haven't done this sort of top-to-bottom review of our criminal justice system in America since 1965. This is the legislative version of finding the leak in your roof. This is the critical first step to figuring out the full range of problems that exist so we can begin the repair process. A similar version of this bill passed the Senate unanimously late in 2018. I hope it can be a part of the conversation we have in the coming days and weeks about how to respond. I know minorities across America are hurting right now, and there is a deficit of trust between many of their communities and the police departments. That is because too many families had to bury their sons or daughters who were killed without justification. While we can't turn time back, we can take action to prevent history from repeating itself. A couple of days ago, I had the honor of talking to George Floyd's family as they were preparing for his funeral yesterday in Houston. I told them that at times like these, I know how inadequate words can be, but if there was some comfort that I could offer, it is that his death is not in vain, that something good will come out of this. I think that is true. This repair process isn't going to be quick or easy. It is not something we can turn to next week and take off our plate and forget about it. This has been a long march since America was founded when we committed the original sin of treating part of our population--our African-American population--as something less than fully human. We fought a civil war over slavery, and in the 1960s, we had pretty controversial and chaotic times, which led to legislative work that protected the vote of minorities and protected civil rights writ large. This is going to require a long-term, bipartisan commitment, not just from us in Washington but folks in the State capitals, city halls, and police departments across the country. Because ultimately it is the local officials who have the responsibility to hire and fire the police chief, to make sure that bad police officers are removed from the force, and that is where the near- term responsibility needs to lie because we don't have that capability here. But we do believe--I do believe there are concrete steps we can take right now to address the racial injustices that were exposed once again with the death of Mr. Floyd. I appreciate Senator Scott and Leader McConnell for responding to this crisis with the urgency that it deserves, and I am proud to be part of this effort in the Senate. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, if you were to approach a random person on the street in any city in America today and say: Who is George Floyd, I could all but guarantee you that you would be met with a quick response. They would tell you about their horror at seeing this video of him being killed at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer; that, sadly, he was not the first victim of this type of crime; and that his death has now mobilized Americans of all races, ages, and backgrounds to demand action. A friend of Mr. Floyd's for more than 35 years said: Everybody in the world knows who George Floyd is today. Presidents, Kings, and Queens--they know George Floyd. It is true. His name and face are everywhere. He is the subject of incredible artwork, passionate speeches, and dinner table conversations. He is the reason for marches and demonstrations in the cities from Houston to Minneapolis, to London, to Sydney. And today, after 2 weeks of grieving, the Floyd family will finally lay their beloved brother, father, and friend to rest in his hometown of Houston, TX. Over the past 2 weeks, I have joined the chorus of voices calling for justice for Mr. Floyd. The first step is underway now that the officers have been charged, but this alone is not enough. Our country has a responsibility to do the best we can to prevent another family from burying their son or daughter as a result of excessive force by a police officer. People of all races are now actively engaged in a national conversation about the racial injustices that exist in our country--one that is deeply needed and long overdue. I want to assure the people of Texas that these conversations are happening in the U.S. Senate as well. Our friend and colleague Senator Tim Scott, from South Carolina, briefed the Republican conference today on the package of bills he is developing, with help from a group of our Members, to combat the racial injustice that still exists in our country today--particularly, as it applies to law enforcement. This is a product of discussions that Leader McConnell and I and others have had that would make real and lasting changes in communities across the country. I am proud to be part of the discussion led by Senator Scott, and I want to commend both him and the majority leader for their leadership and sense of urgency--one we all feel. I think the necessary changes begin within our criminal justice system. Despite calls from some to defund or even disband the police, I believe these steps would do far more harm than good. It is not the right answer. Instead, we need to do a top-to-bottom review of our criminal justice system--something that has not happened in more than 50 years. Senators Peters, Graham, and I have introduced a bill to create a National Criminal Justice Commission that would do just that. Over the course of 18 months, the Commission would examine our criminal justice system and provide recommendations on specific changes that should be made by Congress. I have recommended this bill be included in the legislation Senator Scott is developing, and I am eager to work with him and all of our colleagues in the coming days in the hope of gaining broad bipartisan support. As we know, the only way things get done around here is with bipartisan support. I can't think of anything more urgent, at this particular time, than we demonstrate we can come together and rise above our partisan differences and address this very real need. Of course, there is nothing we can do to reverse what happened in Minneapolis, but there is a lot that can be done to prevent the name of another Black person in America from becoming a trending hashtag. A former classmate of Mr. Floyd's at Jack Yates High School said he always would say: ``I'm going to change the world.'' While this is certainly not the way he or anyone could have fathomed, his story is sure to have a lasting impact on our country's history. Today, I would like to offer, once again, my condolences to the entire Floyd family for their loss. I had the privilege of speaking with them on the telephone yesterday. Rodney Floyd reminded me that the family was from Houston, TX, and he said: We want Texas-size justice. I said: Mr. Floyd, you will have it. In the wake of this tragedy, I hope we can come together and deliver that change. I appreciate Senator Scott and Leader McConnell leading the charge in the Senate and look forward to sharing more details of this proposal soon Paycheck Protection Program Madam President, on another matter, since the CARES Act was signed into law more than 2 months ago, millions of small businesses--I think 4.5 million businesses--have gotten loans from the Paycheck Protection Program. This program has allowed restaurants, retailers, manufacturers, farmers, and small businesses from virtually every sector of the economy to stay afloat and keep their employees on payroll. Dr. Nora Walker operates a pulmonary practice in San Antonio--my hometown--which experienced a near stop on patient visits once COVID-19 began to soar in March. Payroll is her largest expense. Without that source of revenue, she and her husband were worried they wouldn't be able to pay the practice's three employees, but then the lifeline came in the form of the PPP loan. They applied for a $26,000 loan, and they received the funds 2 weeks later. Because of that funding, these three employees could stay on the payroll as Dr. Walker continued her practice via telemedicine. Her practice is a great example of PPP beneficiaries who don't receive enough attention--the small employers who took out small loans to help with a small number of workers in a very big way. From the truly small businesses to those that have grown their footprint in our State, the PPP has been essential to the survival of these businesses and to the livelihood of their employees. As I have spoken to small businesses throughout the State, I have repeatedly heard how vital the PPP has been, but that praise has been coupled with requests to make improvements in the program to ensure that it delivers the most efficient and maximum benefit. Last week, we took the first step in making some of those changes through the Paycheck Protection Flexibility Act, which was signed into law by the President on Friday. It extends the amount of time businesses can use these funds from 8 weeks to 24 weeks and reduces the portion of the loan that must be used on payroll in order to be forgiven from 75 percent to 60 percent. Many of our restaurants and other businesses that simply closed their doors said there is no way they can spend our PPP loan on payroll when our business isn't even open. This provides flexibility for them and for others. In a nutshell, it gives small business owners the ability to use these loans when and where they are needed. In the short term, these changes will be critical to protecting jobs and supporting small businesses as they reopen their doors following the coronavirus-induced shutdown. The jobs report we got this last week provides great hope and promise that this recovery will come soon. In the longer term, we need to ensure that these loans don't end up creating any more burdens for small businesses down the road. Under normal circumstances, businesses can deduct their expenses from their taxable income. Of course, the Paycheck Protection Program covers the cost to many of these expenses, and there is some confusion-- particularly, at Treasury--with how businesses should handle their taxes. I believe the intent of Congress was to allow businesses to continue deducting those expenses. Basically, we were trying to get the money where it was needed most the fastest. By allowing them to continue to deduct those expenses, we do that, but the guidance recently issued by the IRS said the opposite. While it is fair to say this has led to confusion and frustration among many, Congress needs to take action to eliminate the misunderstanding. Last month, I introduced a bill to make clear that small businesses can still deduct their expenses that were paid for with a forgiven Paycheck Protection loan for their taxes. I know this is an unusual circumstance, but isn't the pandemic the most unusual circumstance we experienced in our lifetime? It calls for extraordinary measures, and I believe, under the circumstances, trying to get money to these small businesses is necessary. Our goal with this loan program was to help them remain solvent and keep their employees on payroll so they can recover as soon as possible. Without this change, the PPP loan will fail to deliver the maximum on this most basic objective. The bipartisan Small Business's Expense Protection Act will ensure that small businesses have the cashflow they need to survive today and prosper in the future. After all, we are not interested in handing out meals now only to slap people on the hands later for taking free food. The bill has bipartisan support in the Senate. In fact, I introduced it with the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senators Grassley and Wyden, as well as Senator Rubio, who chairs the Small Business Committee, and Senator Carper. It has gained the support of organizations that advocate for small businesses, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers of Manufacturers, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses. It also has been endorsed by groups in the financial services industry, including the Texas Society of Certified Public Accountants, the American Institute of CPAs, and the Independent Bankers of Texas. Most importantly, this bill is an answer to the real concerns that businessowners are facing. As we work to strengthen our coronavirus response and recovery, that should be the guiding principle in the Senate--figure out what is working, what isn't, and act appropriately. This is a big contrast between the approach we are seeing from our House colleagues. A few weeks ago, they passed a bill that was chock-full of ideological policy proposals they know has absolutely no chance of gaining any traction in the Senate, but they didn't seem to care. They did a driveby vote on a Friday and left town and haven't been back since. Tax breaks for blue State millionaires--they actually want to cut taxes on the richest people in America by reducing or raising the cap on the State and local tax deduction. They want to support marijuana banking, environmental justice grants, soil health studies, changes to election laws. Forget about solving the problem at hand. Our Democratic colleagues in the House, with this so-called Heroes Act, are attempting to use this pandemic as an opportunity to slip their liberal wish list into must-pass legislation. They are eager to stick taxpayers with another $3 trillion tab. This isn't going to happen. It has no chance of passing in the Senate, and they actually know it. These unwanted, unaffordable, and, frankly, laughable proposals are not the types of solutions America needs to recover from this crisis. Indeed, I think it would be wise for a number of folks in the House Democratic leadership to start listening to their constituents for a change rather than try to figure out how do you posture and position yourself favorably for the next election. I have lost count of the number of video calls I have held--and I know my colleagues have had the same experience--with small business owners, medical professionals, farmers, educators, mayors, and representatives from nearly every corner of my State. I appreciate the countless Texans who have shared their feedback with me to help me do a better job on their behalf and who will no doubt continue to point out the gaps that need to be filled in the months ahead, particularly when it comes to the next installment of COVID-19 legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, over the last few months, America has experienced a trifecta of crises, which are reminiscent of some of the most difficult periods in our Nation's history. In many ways, it feels like we are learning what it was like to live through the Spanish flu pandemic, the Great Depression, and the civil rights movement--all at once. This period has challenged all of us physically, economically, and emotionally, and while we still have a long way to go, we are seeing incremental signs of progress. Last week, New York City--once the epicenter of COVID-19 cases--reported no confirmed coronavirus deaths. That was the first time that had happened since March 11. Our economy is experiencing positive improvement as well. Friday's jobs report showed that employment rose by 2.5 million people in May-- an absolutely astonishing and recordbreaking figure. I think that is the first time that happened since 1934. Unemployment dropped to 13.3 percent. That is still way too high but a sharp contrast from the expectations and projections of economists. While we are seeing the needle move in the right direction in our fight to defeat the coronavirus and restore our economy, the third in this trio of crises is much more complex. The murder of George Floyd has sparked passion and anger throughout our country and galvanized people of all skin colors, backgrounds, and ages to demand action. In big cities and small towns alike, we have seen peaceful marches and powerful demonstrations calling for an end to racial injustice that has existed sadly since our country's inception. One of the largest protests in the country happened last week in Mr. Floyd's hometown in Houston, TX, where I was born and where he will be buried tomorrow. An estimated 60,000 people gathered to march in his honor and demand justice The first step in justice for George Floyd, and now that all four officers involved in his death have been arrested and charged, is for the criminal justice system to work. But these four arrests do not erase the larger problems that exist in our society--the lack of trust, the sense that justice is not equal. In fact, they have only shined a brighter light on the systemic problems that we need to do our best to try to address. Making lasting changes will not be quick or easy. At the rally in Houston, several of Mr. Floyd's family members spoke, and one said: ``This is going to be more like a marathon.'' I think that is pretty realistic. It is going to take some time, and it will be the result of difficult discussions but necessary discussions that are happening in homes, workplaces, and buildings like this all across the country. No one has all the answers, but there is a lot we can learn--first, by simply listening to one another. Earlier today, I was able to speak to George Floyd's family and do just that--listen. They have gone through unimaginable pain over these last 2 weeks. I told them I am committed to making sure that George Floyd receives justice. I said: In my experience during times like this, the best comfort you can offer to someone who has lost a loved one is that their death will not be in vain; that something good will come out of it. We know some of the most important reforms that need to be made are in our criminal justice system. The tragic events of Minneapolis, Louisville, and a number of other cities across the country have renewed calls to transform policing practices and repair the divide that exists between some communities and the police. Of course, much of that will take place at the local and State level. It is, in fact, the city council and mayors who hire the police chief and make sure they are running their programs and their departments with integrity and professionalism. That is where most of the important decisions about day-to-day policing and procedures are made. One example in my State is the Sandra Bland Act, which Governor Abbott signed into law in 2017. The namesake of that bill was a Black woman who was found dead in a county jail days after being arrested during a routine traffic stop. The law passed in her honor made a number of changes, including requiring deescalation training for law enforcement officials, much like we have done in the mental health space. The individual police departments are the ones that make decisions about specific practices, responsible, of course, to their city leadership, such as banning knee holds or choke holds. There are important conversations taking place across Texas and the country about how we can effectively promote and improve police practices and begin to repair the damaged relationship between our minority communities and our police. To strengthen that work, there are steps we can take in Washington, DC. I know many of us are engaged in active discussions about what is the best way to create real change. I know it is a priority for Members on both sides of the aisle. One proposal I have mentioned is a bipartisan bill that I introduced with Senator Gary Peters of Michigan and Chairman Lindsey Graham last year. This bill actually had 20 bipartisan cosponsors. It was endorsed not only by the Urban League and the NAACP but the major police organizations in this country as well. It passed unanimously in the Senate. Unfortunately, we ran out of time in the House so it did not actually become law--not yet. This legislation creates a National Criminal Justice Commission, much like the 9/11 Commission, that would review our criminal justice system writ large from top to bottom--something that has not happened since 1965. In 18 months, the Commission would report back to us and make recommendations for changes that could be considered and passed by the Congress. This would allow us to systemically look at what is working and what isn't and what needs to be done to modernize our criminal justice system, including repairing the broken relationship between law enforcement and some of our minority communities. The review that took place in 1965 produced 1,200 specific recommendations, and it is past time to once again take stock of the successes and failures of our criminal justice system. As I mentioned, the bill that passed the Senate unanimously had 20 bipartisan cosponsors and was supported by the National Association of Police Organizations, Major City Chiefs Association, the National Urban League. I believe this type of legislation would give us the basic framework for the lasting changes that we are all after. It would be an umbrella commission under which a lot of very specific and granular issues could be debated and voted on and, if meritorious, passed and become part of the law. I hope it will become a part of our conversation that we are having in the coming days and weeks. Rooting out racial injustice that has existed for generations will require a long-term, bipartisan commitment in Congress and in homes and institutions across the country. I do believe it is simply wrong to paint all police and all law enforcement as somehow racially biased. I think that is not deserved, and I think it is just flat wrong and irresponsible. Clearly, when there are cases of abuse, where even a police officer crosses the line, they need to be held accountable, and we need to be focused on identifying those individuals not only in prosecuting them but in sending a message that that sort of action will not be tolerated in a civilized society. And next, we need to regain the confidence for all of our people or all colors; that the police are our friend and a necessary part of our ordered liberty. Without order, you have anarchy. Only with order, fair laws justly administered on an equal basis can we enjoy the liberty that is part of our birthright in America. I am committed to being part of the solution, and I am eager to roll up my sleeves with all of our colleagues and get to work I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks before the vote.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee held our first oversight hearing to learn more about the origins and evolution of the counterintelligence investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane, opened in July of 2016 against a Presidential candidate and his campaign team. I asked Rod Rosenstein, the former Deputy Attorney General, if he knew of a precedent for active FBI investigations against both nominees of the major political parties for Presidential campaign, and he said: No, there is no precedent. The FBI is not supposed to be involved in our elections and in our politics. Yet you recall what happened on July 5, 2016. Director James Comey held another unprecedented event--a press conference--at which he said that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute Secretary Hillary Clinton for a crime but then proceeded to detail derogatory information--information that was not his to release but was supposed to be part of a confidential investigation. Under our system of justice, the FBI is supposed to investigate crime, and then the Department of Justice makes the charging decision. That is when things become public. Yet, when the FBI decides there is not enough evidence to support charging, it doesn't hold a press conference and disparage the character and reputation of the person it is investigating. I don't know whether Director Comey had an impact on the 2016 election, but I do know what he did was wrong, and, yesterday, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein confirmed his memo to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, which was then attached to Jeff Sessions' letter to the President, recommending that Director Comey be terminated as the FBI Director. The reason was not because he had made a mistake but because he had failed to see the error of his ways and was likely to repeat them again. The Deputy Attorney General is supposed to be the supervisor for the FBI, and while the chain of command is pretty clear in criminal cases, in this species of investigation known as counterintelligence, which is not primarily to investigate crimes but to investigate security threats to the United States, there was no chain of command. The FBI was running rogue under Director Comey, along with some of the things we have learned about with regard to Director McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and others. It is really important that we not only make sure we understand what happened--that it was unprecedented and negatively affected Hillary Clinton's campaign--but that it also negatively affected Donald Trump and his campaign, and this investigation continued long after he became President. It resulted in the appointment of a special counsel, who ended up with no evidence with which to charge the President with any crime. We can't have the FBI interfering with our elections. Yes, it needs to investigate counterintelligence threats to the United States, and it needs to investigate crimes, but it should not be a primary actor in that process, in the public process, by which we elect Presidents. It needs to stay in its particular lane and not become a partisan, in effect, affecting the outcome of Presidential elections, all of which is to say that the investigation the Committee on the Judiciary began yesterday is very, very important. One thing we must make sure of is that this never happens again, and the only way we can make sure it never happens again is to make clear what did happen and where the train went off the rails. The last 3\1/2\ years have been primarily occupied with this so- called investigation into President Trump and his campaign, then the appointment of a special counsel, and 2 years of Director Mueller's investigation as special counsel. Then what followed that was impeachment. Think of all of the opportunity costs associated with that, the time we could have and should have spent on doing things which would have impacted the quality of life of the American people-- improving access to healthcare, creating economic opportunity, enhancing our national security. These are things we were not doing because we were preoccupied with these bogus investigations and the media leaks by the people who knew better. Adam Schiff and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence took a lot of sworn testimony during their ``investigation.'' Now that it has been declassified, we know that none of the witnesses--mainly Obama-era officials--knew of any evidence of coordination, cooperation, or collusion with Russian authorities--none of them. Yet Adam Schiff and others on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence had the temerity to go to the microphones and say there was rampant collusion, conspiracy, and collaboration--just bald-faced lies. Of course, the American people didn't know that. We didn't know that because those allegations were reported in the press, and they led into this narrative which has so dominated us over the last 3\1/2\ years, only to find there was no basis for it. Suffice it to say that the investigations that are being conducted by the Committee on the Judiciary and by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, led by Chairman Johnson, I think, are very, very important. The facts will come out. We know that Attorney General Barr has deputized Mr. Durham, a U.S. attorney, to see whether there is evidence of chargeable crimes, because there needs to be accountability.