John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I came to the floor, and I heard the Democratic leader talking, obviously, about some terrible incidents that occurred in El Paso, Dayton, and in Odessa. Since we were last in session, we have had two shootings in Texas, one in El Paso and one in Odessa. I confess that these are terrible tragedies that cause us to first ask the question ``Why'' and then cause us to ask the question ``What'': What can and what should we do to try to stop incidents like these in the future? I will remind the Democratic leader that we actually have a great template for bipartisan support for gun safety legislation, which is the bill we sent to the President last year called Fix NICS--NICS being the National Instant Criminal Background Check System that the FBI operates. For example, if you were convicted of a felony or dishonorably discharged from the military or you were subject to a protective order or you had been committed as a result of a mental health crisis, under existing law, all of these prohibit you from purchasing or possessing a firearm. But if the background check system doesn't work, it doesn't really count for much. I am proud of the fact that we came together on a bipartisan basis and passed this Fix NICS legislation by overwhelming margins. Anybody who is suggesting that we simply haven't done anything has a faulty memory, at the very minimum. I would also add that we have passed legislation that would enhance school safety. One of the problems is that these cowards who commit these terrible acts don't go shoot up police stations; they go to the soft targets, like the schools. No parent should send their child to school wondering whether they are going to be safe from attacks like those we have seen occur in places like the Santa Fe school district in Texas, so we passed bipartisan legislation to deal with that as best we could. We also recognize that many of the people who commit these acts are a danger to themselves and others because of a mental health crisis. In the 21st Century Cures Act--a broad, bipartisan bill--we passed legislation that provides for piloting of assisted outpatient treatment. The reason that is so important is, if you are dealing with an adult--an adult child, an adult spouse, obviously, or a parent-- there is very little you can do to make them follow their doctors' orders or get the kind of treatment they need to take their medication. But as a result of assisted outpatient treatment orders, a family member or law enforcement or mental health professional can petition the court for a court order requiring people to comply with their doctors' orders to show up for their appointments and to take their medication. They have reaped tremendous benefits around the country, protecting people from themselves when they are in a mental health crisis and protecting other people from potential acts of violence that they might commit. It is not true that people who are mentally ill are somehow more prone to violence, but, certainly, when they lose control of themselves--and when they are in a mental health crisis, they do-- they can be a danger to themselves and others. So this assisted outpatient treatment pilot program that we pioneered in the 21st Century Cures Act, I think, provides another tool. Then we provided law enforcement with additional training. That is where the active shooter training came from. It was actually pioneered in San Marcos, TX, at Texas State University, where they train law enforcement not to sit on the perimeter while the shooting goes on inside a building but to attack the shooters where they are. Also, we went one step further to make sure not only that we can stop the shooter but also that we can actually save lives and keep people from bleeding to death by training emergency medical personnel to follow the police into an active shooting scene to save lives. Part of the problem with discussing this topic is that there is a lot of mythology out there. I heard my friend the Democratic leader say: If we had just passed another background check system, maybe Dayton or El Paso would not have happened. Well, both of those shooters passed a background check. Is he suggesting we ought to pass a law just to pretend that we are doing something, but it would actually not have a positive impact on saving lives? That is not what we did in the Fix NICS bill. As you may recall, the particular shooter there was disqualified from purchasing firearms, but the Air Force had not uploaded his felony conviction for domestic violence into the background check system. So when he went in to buy a firearm, it didn't catch him. He was able to lie and then buy. I am proud to say that as a result of this bipartisan legislation we passed, there has been a 400-percent increase in the Federal Government providing additional background check information for the National Instant Criminal Background Check--the NICS--System. I think it is safe to say, as a result of the bipartisan legislation we passed, working together, that lives will be saved. That is what we ought to be about, not about show boats or political posturing. We ought to be about solving the problem. Let's get our facts right first. The Democratic leader mentioned Odessa. It is true that the shooter in Odessa did have a mental health commitment, and he tried to buy a gun through traditional means. He failed a background check, so he wasn't successful. While the details are still being investigated, it looks as though he purchased the firearm from an unlicensed firearm dealer, which is a crime. If the dealer sold the firearm to the shooter knowing that he was disqualified from purchasing or buying a firearm, that would be another crime. So trying to suggest that some sort of additional background check would have solved that problem when what the dealer did and what the purchaser did were already illegal, I just don't think holds up. I look forward to continued discussion and debate on this topic. It was on the minds of an awful lot of people as I traveled across my State of Texas this August--as we all did during the August work period. I always benefit from going back home and getting refreshed by the thoughts, the ideas, and the aspirations of real people instead of living here inside this fantasyland known as Washington, DC. I always tell people that Washington is a fascinating place to visit. It is like Disneyland, but just remember one thing: It is not real. What is real are the people we represent back home and what the laboratories of democracy produce, which are the States, including the great State of Texas. As I travel back home, I also enjoy sharing updates about what we have been working on here in Washington and seeing how legislation we have passed can actually make a difference back home. One example is a program authorized by a bill that I introduced called Project Safe Neighborhoods, which is now the law of the land. It is a bill I introduced, which is now the law. I invited Attorney General Barr to come to Dallas, TX, to hear how this initiative has already begun driving down crime rates in a couple of our communities in Dallas. This program partners with local, State, and Federal law enforcement officials, together with Federal prosecutors, to target violent offenders--people who have no legal right to possess a firearm and who use firearms routinely--and engage with the community and, thus, help create safer neighborhoods. It is already having a positive impact in communities across my State, and I am eager to see the long-term benefits of this incredible program. In Austin, I visited the University of Texas during the month of August and met with some student veterans who are reaping the benefits of a bill we passed this last summer. It is called the Veteran STEM Scholarship Improvement Act. STEM stands for science, technology, engineering, math. The Veteran STEM Scholarship Improvement Act made a seemingly small change to an existing program, which provides extended GI bill eligibility for student veterans pursuing STEM degrees. Because we made a technical but important change, more students are able to continue their education with significantly less financial stress. President Fenves of the University of Texas system said that instead of just three courses that veterans could qualify for using their GI bill, they can now qualify for, I think he said, 25. It may have been 28. There are multiples of what they can qualify for under existing law. So this small change will make a big difference. I enjoyed hearing about their career goals from the students who are using these GI bill benefits, and I look forward to seeing all they will accomplish. In addition to those meetings and those visits, I attended a ribbon- cutting at a brandnew VA clinic in San Angelo, TX. I spoke to survivors of sexual assault in Grapevine about the need to pass the Debbie Smith Act to reauthorize the money we appropriate to help test backlog rape kits. I was able to join my friend Congressman Henry Cuellar from Laredo, TX, to discuss the future of the USMCA, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, the successor to NAFTA. So while it was a busy and productive work period, sadly, it was also marked by a number of heartbreaking moments that I alluded to a moment ago. On the morning of August 3, a gunman stormed into a Walmart in El Paso, TX, killing 22 innocent people and wounding two dozen others. It became the deadliest mass shooting in the United States this year. In a community as tight-knit as El Paso, the devastation was immeasurable, and I would note that the shooter traveled from another part of the State to El Paso. He was not from El Paso. The heartbreaking confusion quickly turned into rage when we learned that the shooter was a White supremacist whose crime could only be described as domestic terrorism. The day after the shooting, I visited El Paso and met with several of the victims, as well as the law enforcement officers responding to the tragedy. Members of the community created a memorial to honor those who lost their lives, and on that first day, it was relatively small, about 4 feet wide. By the time I returned to El Paso with President Trump and the First Lady, 3 days later, this 4-foot-wide memorial had grown to hundreds of feet wide. The outpouring by the community was overwhelming. In the face of tragedy and unthinkable grief, the strength and support of the entire community from that memorial to the long line of folks waiting to donate blood, to the donations to help the victims was truly remarkable. As I also indicated at the beginning of my remarks, less than a month later, we experienced another shooting. A man went on a shooting rampage between Midland and Odessa, killing 7 people and wounding 25 others. When I visited Odessa this last week, I met Odessa police officer James Santana, who was injured in the shooting but fortunately is expected to make a full recovery. When I asked the police chief in Ector County, which is where Odessa is located: What do you think we might be able to do in Washington that would help, he said: Well, we just don't have adequate resources to deal with people suffering from a mental health crisis. That might be one area where you could help. I had the pleasure of thanking the men and women in blue, our law enforcement officers, for their quick response in Odessa and thanked them for the work they do every day. By the way, I also had the opportunity to travel to the White House this morning. President Trump gave an award to the police officers in Dayton, OH, who were able to stop the shooter there. He offered certificates of commendation to some of the employees of Walmart who helped save lives in the shooting episode there. While major events like these are ones that grab the headlines, Texas law enforcement officials and officials all over the country are on the streets each and every day doing everything they can possibly do to keep our communities safe. I think it would just be negligence on our part not to continue to thank these men and women and especially those who responded to tragedies like El Paso, Midland, and Odessa. As our State continues to grieve from this senseless loss of life, the questions are, of course, How did this happen? How can we prevent it from happening again? Well, I know we are going to try, just as we have done in the past, to identify gaps and problems with the law and fill those gaps and save lives in the process. If I knew how we could pass a law that would prevent people from committing crimes, we would pass it unanimously, but, unfortunately, that is not the human condition. I have been speaking with my constituents as well as colleagues in the Senate over the last few weeks about what a legislative solution might look like, and I do expect us to have a wide range of debate on the subject in the coming days. I just spoke to a representative at the White House. They say they are putting together a set of proposals to provide the President later this week, and we look forward to hearing what the President believes these proposals should consist of. Again, I think the model we used after the Sutherland Springs shooting in 2017 was a pretty good one, where we introduced a bill to improve the background check system and to prevent people who should not be able to purchase a firearm from doing so. We passed that legislation on a broad bipartisan basis. Had that legislation passed sooner, it could have prevented the Sutherland Springs gunman from acquiring his weapon in the first place. By lying on his background check application, knowing, perhaps, that the United States Air Force had not uploaded his conviction for domestic violence into the background check system, he was able to get away with it. These are the kind of reforms I believe we should be looking at--real solutions to real problems. We owe it to the American people to focus on making changes that will actually work, not show votes and not talking points. We ought to be about trying to solve this problem. The American people are smart. They can see what is happening up here when we resort to the same old tired talking points and are not really engaged in trying to find solutions. They see through it, and we owe it to them and owe it to ourselves and owe it to people who might otherwise become future victims to do everything we can to provide the tools to law enforcement to try to prevent as many of these deaths as we can. In the case of the Fix NICS Act, it was able to become law because it had broad support from Republicans and Democrats as well as the President. This will guide my approach. Again, I am not interested in scoring political points or introducing bills so we can pat ourselves on the back and run our next campaign on it. I am actually interested in trying to solve the problem and saving lives in the process. That is what we did on the Fix NICS Act. The leader made it clear that if there is a proposal out there that is able meet these same criteria, we will consider it on the floor of the Senate. He has asked us to come together and figure out what that legislation would look like. While there are certainly differences on both sides of the aisle about what we should do, I hope all of us can remember we share a common goal of stopping these mass shootings to the extent we humanly can. Again, if we knew how to pass a law to prevent people from committing crimes, we would have already done that. We may not be able to do that, but we sure can, I think, make some progress and hopefully save some lives in the process. There are a lot of discussions about ways to do that, and I am hopeful we can reach an agreement soon. We cannot allow these acts of violence to somehow become the new normal. As we keep the victims and their families and the dedicated law enforcement officers impacted by the shooting in our prayers, we owe it to all of them and to ourselves to work on a solution to prevent more communities from experiencing these types of tragedies. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, over the last few months, I have spoken at length on the Senate floor about a bill I introduced earlier this year to reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act--legislation to help us end the nationwide rape kit backlog. This legislation carries the name of a fierce and courageous woman--a sexual assault survivor whose advocacy was born of her personal experience. Three decades ago, Debbie Smith was taken from her home and taken to a wooded area where she was robbed and raped by an unknown attacker. She reported the crime to police and went to the emergency room for a forensic exam, but because of the rape kit backlog, she had to wait 6\1/2\ years before finally receiving the call that her attacker had been identified through a DNA test. During that time, she lived in constant fear, wondering who he was, where he was, and whether he would return to hurt her again. Identifying offenders through DNA evidence is critical to providing not only justice but peace of mind for those assaulted and delivering justice to victims, and, yes, even exonerating the innocent. The power of DNA testing is such that it can essentially rule out people from being the alleged assailant or the actual assailant. So this is really important for a number of reasons. Sharing this information across State lines through the Federal system can help us identify repeat offenders who would otherwise go undetected. Knowing the potential impact, Debbie became one of our Nation's most vocal advocates for eliminating rape kit backlogs, including the reprehensible rape kit backlog I have been speaking about. In 2004, a bill that carries her name was signed into law to help local and State crime labs partner with Federal law enforcement to receive resources to end the Federal DNA evidence backlog. It is because of the Debbie Smith Act that more than a billion dollars has been provided to forensic labs across the country. Since 2005, more than 860,000 DNA cases have been processed, accounting for 43 percent of all forensic profiles in the FBI's DNA database. The Debbie Smith Act has also been central in eliminating the rape kit backlog in my home State of Texas, which had reached the point of more than 20,000 untested kits at one point earlier this decade. As I said at the beginning, I introduced the Debbie Smith Act of 2019 to reauthorize this important funding stream that supports the auditing, testing, and sharing of DNA evidence so we can eliminate that backlog and ensure that it will not grow again in the future. The benefits of continuing the programs created under the original Debbie Smith Act cannot be overstated, and we must get this important legislation to the President's desk before it expires at the end of September. Since it was first enacted in 2004, the Debbie Smith Act has never lapsed or expired, and there is no excuse for allowing it to expire or lapse this year. This bill is not controversial; it is not partisan; and it is not divisive. In fact, when it came to the Senate floor, not a single Senator voted against it. Since we passed the legislation in May, the House of Representatives has sat on its hands and has done nothing. After repeated requests from myself, our other colleagues, and countless victims' advocates, Speaker Pelosi has refused to bring the Debbie Smith Act up for a vote. Earlier this week, the Fraternal Order of Police, which represents more than 348,000 members, sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy urging the House to move this legislation. We also heard from the National District Attorneys Association, RAINN, the Sergeants Benevolent Association, and several other law enforcement and victims' rights groups which are fully supportive of this legislation. All of us are ready for the House to act. I urge Speaker Pelosi to take up the Debbie Smith Act once the House returns to Washington in September and before it expires or lapses. It is simply unconscionable to let unrelated partisan bickering stop a bill that brings justice to victims.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, when the Senate gavels out at the end of this day, Members will head home for the August work period to spend time with our constituents and family. I, for one, am eager to get back home to Texas and spend time with folks in about every region in my State. I have the honor of representing roughly 28 million people, and it takes a little bit of time and effort to get around the State, but I am looking forward to it. I will have the chance to highlight some of the work that we have been doing here in Washington and, yes, hear from my constituents, my fellow Texans, on what they care most about, what they agree with, what they disagree with, and everything in between. With the passage of this bipartisan budget deal, we have now taken care of our final piece of business for this work period. The funding agreement we just passed will provide stability for our Nation through 2020 and deliver on some of the administration's key priorities. It has been the result of extensive negotiations between President Trump and Speaker Pelosi and represents a compromise between two sides that typically don't agree on much, and, yes, ``compromise'' is still not a dirty word. It is the only way things get done around here. Obviously, this agreement is not perfect. That is the nature of compromise and the hallmark of responsible government. By passing this funding agreement, we are avoiding the possibility of a government shutdown again this fall. Instead, it provides us the time and space for wide-ranging debate about our government's spending habits. As our national deficit continues to grow, that could not be more critical. I was glad to see that through the President's tough negotiations, it prevents 30 poison pills--or policy riders--from reaching the President's desk. It is no secret that our friends across the aisle have tried their best to eliminate the Hyde amendment, which, since 1976, has defined a consensus that no taxpayer funds be provided for abortions. That argument is over until 2020. We also know there will be no Green New Deal done--no undoing of the President's regulatory reform through the backdoor. Most importantly though, this funding agreement invests in our military. If there is one priority for what we ought to be doing here as elected representatives in the Federal Government, it is to provide for the common defense and for our national security. This funding agreement provides the Pentagon with the predictability and flexibility they need in order to keep our country safe today and tomorrow. A predictable and steady budget gives our military leaders the ability to plan for the future and allows them to invest in the innovative and cutting-edge tools our servicemembers need and ensure that when the call comes, we are ready. I was proud to support this funding agreement, and I am glad it is now headed to the White House for the President's signature.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the past several months, we have heard a lot of talk about Medicare for All. Its Democratic supporters claim this is the panacea that will solve all of America's healthcare woes. They say it will guarantee every person's access to healthcare and simplify our healthcare system, but it doesn't take much effort to see the flaws in their proposal and in their argument--something we are obligated to do, to examine these proposals to see whether they will work or not. Our Democratic friends proudly own the fact that Medicare for All would completely end employer-based health insurance as we know it. We heard that a lot last night during the debates of the Democratic candidates running for President. It would literally force every American into one government-run plan modeled after our current Medicare system. Part of the problem is, seniors have paid into the Medicare system for many years, and we know it is on a path to insolvency unless Congress does something. Medicare for All would only make that worse, expanding it to every eligible American. According to a Kaiser poll released yesterday, more than three- quarters of Americans favor employer-sponsored health insurance, and 86 percent of people with employer coverage rate their insurance positively. That would include, again, as we heard last night, many union members who have been part of the collective bargaining agreement with their employers, with management, to negotiate outstanding, quality private health insurance. That would go away under Medicare for All. We know that about 83-percent of the people polled support our current Medicare system for our seniors, and a whopping 95 percent of people with Medicare coverage are happy with it, but if Medicare for All becomes the law of the land, those numbers would plummet because Medicare would be unrecognizable to the seniors who paid into the fund and who have earned that coverage. Families would lose all freedom when it comes to making their own healthcare choices. You see a government-selected doctor at a government-selected facility. We know what that looks like in the United Kingdom and in Canada, where people have to wait in long lines just to get seen by their doctor, much less elective surgery. You get the coverage the government says you deserve at the time, when the government says you can have it. It would completely hollow out the existing Medicare Program and inject unfathomable instability into America's healthcare system. If you get past all of that, which is hard to do, you certainly will not be able to stomach the price. Medicare for All, it is estimated, would cost taxpayers $32 trillion over the first 10 years alone. Now, credit Bernie Sanders, our colleague from Vermont. He is honest enough to acknowledge that he is going to have to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for that, but $32 trillion is a lot of money, especially when our current debt exceeds $20 trillion already and is growing. When it comes to how they would pay for it, the only answer we hear from everybody other than Bernie Sanders is, ``Let's just tax the rich.'' This is part of their usual talking points and part of the Democratic Party's incredible sprint to the left and their shocking embrace of a socialist agenda. We saw the start of their move toward socialized medicine in 2009 with ObamaCare. We famously recall President Obama trying to reassure people that if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, and if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor--none of which proved to be true. Now Democrats want to make these extravagant promises about Medicare for All, which we know they cannot keep. It is clear ObamaCare was just the beginning. Medicare for All, or the public option, so to speak, which some people try to tout as an alternative, is nothing but a government competition for private health insurance, and you can't beat the Federal Government, especially when it is paid for by Federal tax dollars. That is a march toward the elimination of private health insurance, including that provided through your employer, which now benefits about 180 million Americans. Last night, we saw candidates defend these radical policies during the Democratic debate. Two of our Senate colleagues who are running for President sparred over what another candidate called ``fairytale'' promises. They fought to defend their plan to remove all choice from Americans' healthcare. They tried to convince their fellow Democrats and the American people that they are writing a check that, if elected, they can cash. We know that is not true. The American people are not going to be fooled. They don't want socialized medicine; they don't want to run up government spending; they certainly don't want to have to pay $32 trillion in additional taxes to pay for it; and they certainly don't want Washington bureaucrats dictating their families' healthcare choices. In a speech last week, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Seema Verma, spoke about these radical healthcare ideas. She said: ``These proposals are the largest threats to the American healthcare system.'' Let me say that again. Seema Verma, head of CMS, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, called these proposals ``the largest threats'' to America's healthcare system. So you better believe we will keep fighting to resist this socialist agenda and this evermore liberal wish list.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 639 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3245, which was received from the House.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 53, which was received from the House.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 263.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 294, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 295, submitted earlier today.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know of no of further debate on the measure.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged from further consideration of S. 2052 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the Van Hollen amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume executive session and, notwithstanding rule XXII, the time between now and 3 p.m. be equally divided between the leaders and their designees.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate proceed to S. Res. 285.