John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 1 minute.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I appreciate this broad support we have seen for plugging the holes in our ability to evaluate foreign investment with regard to national security risks in the United States. We know China, for example, has been quite explicit about what it is trying to do to surpass the United States economically and militarily, and it has been very aggressive and very strategic in the way it has tried to acquire intellectual property and know-how through foreign investment in the United States. That is why this legislation is so important. I admire the Senator from Pennsylvania as one of the most principled conservatives in this body and in Congress, but he and I differ over whether the REINS Act, which would require up-or-down votes on implementing regulations, should be a part of the implementation of this national security legislation. I never dreamed we would do that in a national security context as opposed to doing it in economic and environmental legislation. Reluctantly, I oppose the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania and encourage all of our colleagues to do the same. I conclude by saying, I share his concerns when it comes to using national security as a pretext on economic legislation and trade issues, and I look forward to continuing to work with him and all of my other colleagues outside of the national security context to make sure we support free and fair trade--trade that protects U.S. interests. With the overstepping of the regulatory bounds by the executive branch on occasion, I am all for rolling that back when we can but not in a national security context like this. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am glad we are making such great progress on the Defense authorization bill. I know some additional work needs to be done. I wanted to come to the floor and comment briefly on the historic meeting that occurred this last week with North Korean officials in Singapore. President Trump, Secretary of State Pompeo, National Security Advisor Bolton, and the rest of the American delegation are to be congratulated for having this meeting. It was a historic first step, and I applaud President Trump for taking it. But I reiterate: It was a first step. To me, it reminds me of boxers entering the ring and touching gloves before the fight begins. It is a warmup for something longer and much more difficult. We need to remain clear-eyed about who we are dealing with and not assume that there isn't hard work to be done. As one commentator recently put it, North Korean duplicity is normal. We need to remind ourselves of our own history of negotiating with North Korea and our counterpart's record of saying one thing and simply doing another. The joint agreement signed by President Trump and Kim Jong Un set broad goals whereby the United States made unspecified ``security guarantees'' and Kim Jong Un recommitted to work toward the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. This agreement set the stage for future engagements between our Secretary of State and his North Korean counterpart. By saying it is a first step--or, like two boxers, touching gloves before the fight begins--I don't want to suggest in any way that this was unimportant. I think it is dramatically important because I can't think of any other place in the world where a misstep or a miscalculation could lead to so much bloodshed, heartache, and conflict. While we know that the military option must always be the last option, diplomacy is always welcome and is facilitated by a strong military and preparedness. But now the followup negotiations will be led by Secretary Pompeo, and I have every confidence that he will ably lead those. He has said that the United States hopes to achieve ``major disarmament'' of North Korea's nuclear arsenal during the next 2\1/2\ years but added emphatically that we will resume joint military exercises with South Korea if the talks stall. I think this represents the right approach. Aim for the best, while remaining vigilant and preparing for all possible obstacles and outcomes. President Trump has said that sanctions against North Korea will remain in effect until we are sure that nuclear weapons are no longer a factor. I applaud this stance of maximum pressure. We shouldn't take our foot off the gas at this point because that is what brought us to this historic meeting in the first place. I believe the United States should remain committed to the permanent, verifiable, and irreversible dismantling of North Korea's weapons of mass destruction, and I wish Secretary Pompeo luck as he continues followup discussions in South Korea to help accomplish the goal that we seek. As Speaker Ryan said last week, President Trump has now ``disrupted the status quo.'' I like the way he expressed that. President Trump--if nothing--is good at disrupting the status quo, but here, when it comes to North Korea, it is enormously positive when the status quo includes a brutal dictatorship that commits flagrant human rights violations, has a state-controlled economy, is starving its own people in order to build nuclear weapons, and has shown contempt for international norms and global diplomacy. I would say that the careful and cautious kind of ``disruption'' is exactly the right thing to do. Our colleagues across the aisle seem to agree, and I am grateful for that. Not everything needs to be a partisan issue here in Washington, DC. In a statement, the junior Senator from Vermont called the summit earlier this week ``a positive step in de-escalating tensions.'' I saw that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made similar positive remarks. We will have to wait and see how this story unfolds, but the President is to be commended, first for ensuring that the summit took place at all and, then, for providing us with hope for a path forward. Farm Bill Mr. President, another item of business today is the farm bill, which I hope we will take up promptly here in the Senate. Fortunately, it passed the Senate Agriculture Committee yesterday by a vote of 20-to-1. Thanks to Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow, this bipartisan compromise is a fair and equitable bill that does not favor one region of the country over another. I have found in my time in the Senate that agricultural issues and the farm bill don't pit Democrats against Republicans so much as it pits one region of the country against another, which makes it even more challenging--kind of like a Rubik's Cube to figure out. But the near unanimous vote is a testament to the collaboration and bipartisanship of the leaders of the committee. They deserve the respect and appreciation of us all, especially those of us who hail from States where agriculture has such a dominant presence, like my State and like the State of the Presiding Officer. The farm bill is always a significant piece of legislation because it helps to ensure that Americans, and many other people who depend upon our food supply, enjoy access to the safest, most affordable, and most reliable food supply in the world. We have to remember that in many non-Western countries, you can't just walk up to a store and know that what you want will be there on the shelf or that it will be affordable or that it will be safe to even eat. The farm bill helps to ensure that we continue to enjoy each of those things, knowing that we can walk into a store, that we will find what we want, that it will be affordable, and that it will be safe to eat. This year's farm bill will be hugely impactful for farmers and ranchers in my State of Texas. Among its most noteworthy provisions are protecting seed cotton eligibility for the farm bill safety net. In the supplemental funding bill we passed last February, we worked hard to include this language, returning cotton to the safety net. This helped cotton growers compete on a level playing field after years of depressed prices. So I want to thank Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow, as well as the rest of the committee, for ensuring that this policy continues and that cotton farmers have the long-term predictability they deserve under the farm bill. This year's bill also retains and strengthens the Price Loss Coverage Program to help provide Texas producers with predictability throughout unstable weather and natural disasters. That comes as great news this year, especially, when we are all well aware that much of the Texas Panhandle, as well as much of the rest of my State, remains under severe, or even exceptional, drought conditions. Additionally, the bill promotes animal health and reauthorizes disease research programs, including a crucial one that will help the U.S. Department of Agriculture research and contain the spread of cattle fever tick. This is a parasite-carrying insect with the potential to wipe out cattle herds and cause devastating financial losses. The research programs that we are promoting will help farmers and ranchers all across the country. I know the senior Senator from Minnesota, for example, has been concerned about avian influenza in her State, and I am glad that we were able to work together to ensure that these important research programs, with all of their implications, are authorized in the bill. On top of that, the farm bill will strengthen crop insurance and other crop management tools and enhance incentive programs that help the agriculture community conserve soil and water. Finally, the bill encourages the U.S. Department of Agriculture research partnerships, including those at Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Prairie View A&M, to promote more productive and profitable farming, and it will assist Texas farmers and ranchers in placing and selling their products in foreign markets. I know Senator McConnell intends to take the farm bill up on the floor as soon as possible, and I look forward to supporting its swift passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we will be voting on the National Defense Authorization Act soon, which enjoys a storied history in the Congress. Fifty-seven consecutive years we passed the National Defense Authorization Act in order to support and equip our military. Earlier this month, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted overwhelmingly-- 25 to 2--to advance this important legislation to the floor. There are 1.8 million Americans around the world on Active Duty, according to the Department of Defense. The United States has 737 military installations worldwide, and the Department of Defense is the world's largest employer. Supporting all of these people and facilities is a Herculean task, and the Defense authorization bill is one very important way we do that. It is how we make sure the men and women in uniform are paid, our alliances are strengthened, and that military facilities are properly modernized and maintained. This bill we will be voting on will support a total of--it is an authorization--$716 billion for these tasks. Occasionally, people ask: Isn't that too high a price to pay? Well, $716 billion is unquestionably a lot of money, but the simple fact is, there is no one who shares our values who can step in and fill the void left by an absence of American leadership. It is American leadership that keeps the world stable--or at least as stable as it is--that helps keeps the peace and helps fight the scourge of things like terrorism. There is no substitute for the United States of America. There are countries I will talk about in a moment--such as China-- that want to surpass us both economically and militarily, but it is important for our very way of life and for peace in the world that the United States continues to live up to its responsibilities to lead when it comes to national security. In my home State, there are roughly 200,000 men and women stationed at places like Fort Hood, Joint Base San Antonio, the Red River Army Depot and Ellington Field. These are the people I think of each year as we take up and pass the Defense authorization bill. They rely on us to supply them what they need in order to do the tasks they have volunteered to do. One thing this bill will do--and it sounds very modest--is provide a 2.6-percent pay increase, the largest in nearly 10 years for our uniformed military. Given the state of today's world, maintaining our military readiness has never been more important or more difficult. The array of national security threats facing the world is more complex and diverse than at any time since World War II. Our leaders say, the strategic environment has not been this competitive since the end of the Cold War. Simply put, America no longer enjoys a comparative advantage that it once had over its competitors and its adversaries. Secretary of Defense Mattis and the Department of Defense have admirably crafted the national defense strategy that was delivered to Congress earlier this year. This is a critical first step for the administration to lay out its strategy, but now that strategy must be implemented, and the Defense authorization bill will align our policies and resources in a way that will accomplish that. This legislation will modernize the military's rigid, outdated personnel management system to increase the adaptability of the force, increase its lethality, where necessary, invest in emerging technologies to ensure that our troops have what they need in order to be successful, and reform the Department of Defense to empower strong civilian leadership. I am glad there are two pieces of this bill that are included and that I want to highlight in particular. The first is called the Children of the Military Protection Act. I believe the Senator from Maine is my chief cosponsor, and I thank him for that. This will close a jurisdictional loophole affecting military installations where minors commit criminal offenses on base. This issue was brought to my attention by an Army JAG officer--a judge advocate general, a lawyer--who was concerned that juvenile sexual assault cases were falling through the cracks when the Federal Government chose not to prosecute because, naturally, this would end up in the jurisdiction of U.S. attorneys and the Federal courts, and certainly their plate is full. This was a particular problem, though, at Fort Hood in Central Texas. This legislation will allow Federal prosecutors to retrocede jurisdiction to the State; that is, allow the State to step up and prosecute these cases, allowing State-level authorities to take up the case when the Federal Government's other responsibilities and finite resources prevent it from being able to do so. This is, as I said, a bipartisan priority that Members of both sides of the aisle should rally behind. Our children who live on military bases must be protected at all costs, and when they are sexually assaulted, their juvenile assailant should not escape justice because of the constraints of the status quo. The second piece of legislation I have introduced and that I am pleased has been included in the NDAA--the Defense authorization bill-- involves how we address future threats to our national security. I have spoken quite a bit about China recently. My friend from Maine, who serves on the Intelligence Committee, as do I--we hear quite often about the challenges confronting us from our rival China. But that country bears mention again right now because of its connection to the Defense authorization bill. The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Chairman Thornberry, has recently said that it is in ``the Indo-Pacific region [where] the United States faces a near-term, belligerent threat armed with nuclear weapons and also a longer-term strategic competitor.'' He has described that as being a threat to the United States in the Indo- Pacific region where we face a near-term belligerent threat armed with nuclear weapons--that would be North Korea--along with a long-term strategic competitor, and that would be China, that Chairman Thornberry is referring to. That is why this year's Defense authorization bill, among other goals, prioritizes military readiness in that region and strengthens key partnerships. It promotes stability and security in the Indo- Pacific region through exercises with our allies, and it maintains our policy of maximum pressure on North Korea as we seek to negotiate the denuclearization of the North Korean peninsula. But another main provision in this legislation that has to do with the Indo-Pacific region in particular, which I have cosponsored, along with Senator Feinstein, the senior Senator from California, is known as the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, or FIRRMA. This legislation will allow us to better intercept threats to our national security posed by China when its companies masquerade as normal corporate actors. But it has been well documented that China is intent upon not only stealing our intellectual property, but also acquiring the know-how to build dual-use technology in China and thus undermine our industrial base here in the United States. They do so by evading current law, by mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures. This legislation will modernize the review process led by the Secretary of Treasury to make sure that foreign investments in the United States protect our national security. This is not intended to discourage foreign investment. Foreign investment is a good thing. But when countries have an explicit strategy to try to acquire cutting-edge technology that has military applications, it obviously is a concern to our national security. As I said earlier, the Defense authorization bill is important for many reasons that hit closer to home. For example, in Texas, this bill has traditionally authorized needed improvements at Texas military facilities. We have an all-volunteer military. That means we have to not discourage people from entering the military or being retained in the military. One of the ways we do that is by making sure that we maintain improvements at our facilities, as well as provide updated aircraft, ships, and ground vehicles. All of these have Texas implications too. So when I vote yes on the Defense authorization bill soon, I will be thinking of these servicemembers--my constituents back home who proudly wear the uniform of the U.S. military--as well as all of those troops stationed overseas. I encourage all of our colleagues, let's make sure we get this NDAA, the Defense authorization bill, across the finish line as soon as possible.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to mark an important milestone for our friend Senator Mitch McConnell, who has now become the longest serving Republican leader, surpassing Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, who served from 1985 to 1996. I told somebody in the press yesterday that Senator McConnell has done it the old-fashioned way: He earned it. He earned this role as our leader and the respect, certainly, that goes along with it. He served as minority leader beginning in 2007, and I had the honor of presenting him with a copy of his maiden speech as Republican leader back then. That was at the beginning of the 110th Congress, and he has served as either majority leader or minority leader ever since. What a historic tenure his has been, and what a privilege it has been for me to serve alongside him since I came to the Senate in 2003, but especially in my role as whip, I have had the opportunity to work with the leader on a daily basis, and it has been one of the highlights of my Senate career. Senator McConnell is trusted. We all know he is whip smart. He is an impressive strategist. He understands the Senate better than anybody else here, and time and again, he has demonstrated what leaders always need to demonstrate, and that is a remarkable degree of humility, sometimes preferring to work for the betterment of the conference and the country behind the scenes rather than enjoy the spotlight on the frontlines. That takes a remarkable sense of self-confidence and team spirit that not everybody has. It is true that sometimes he is soft- spoken, but I can assure you that he is never afraid to take a hard line when absolutely necessary. But more than that, he is a rare example of what a Senator ought to be, what a true public servant ought to be. As majority leader, Senator McConnell is a member of a storied group that includes the likes of Senator Charles Curtis, the first official majority leader of the Senate, who was famous for his Native American ancestry and racing horses, I am told. The` group includes Robert Taft of Ohio, who would work late into the night studying the rules of the Senate in order to outmaneuver his opponents. It includes Lyndon Baines Johnson from my State, who would go on to become President, as well as Mike Mansfield from Montana, Johnson's whip, who went on to serve as majority leader for 16 years. In more recent times, there have been great statesmen, such as Bob Dole, Trent Lott, and Bill Frist. We all know that Senator McConnell is an avid student of history, and he has learned a lot from all of these leaders--their example, their ups and downs, their successes, and their challenges--and in a sense, he stands on their shoulders. The experience, the example, and the great leadership each of them demonstrated have benefited all of us but nobody more than our leader Senator McConnell. In today's world, the qualities embodied by all of these men is not very widely understood, but we have to look no further than Senator McConnell to see what that leadership looks like. One thing it requires is recognizing your role but also respecting the role of other Members in the conference. As I said, Senator McConnell deeply understands the nature of the Senate and his position, and he illustrated this when he spoke at the beginning of the 114th Congress. In his first speech, he recognized that the American people were anxious about the direction of our country. He mentioned the decline of civic trust in our national institutions. He expressed concern about his fellow Americans feeling as though government was somehow uninterested or incapable of addressing their concerns--a government that seemed to be working for itself instead of for them. Those were some of the sentiments and concerns he expressed at the time. Sensing this unease, articulating the problem was just the beginning of Senator McConnell's setting out to fix it. What Americans wanted then is what they want now: They want a government that works. They want, as Senator McConnell called it, a government of the 21st century, one that functions with efficiency and accountability, competence and purpose. That is the kind of government our leader has worked tirelessly to promote. As he has told us time and again, what he is interested in is results, not show votes. Many of us from time to time have said: Why can't we have a vote on this or that? He reminds us that what we need to produce is results, not theatrics. He has taken steps to return the Senate to regular order, which simply means getting the Senate back to work according to its own rules and traditions. He has gotten the committees to work again. The Senate simply does not work unless our committee structure works, because then power is diffused among all Senators, and they each get to contribute their piece of a solution to a problem. He has committed himself and the Senate to a more rational, functioning appropriations process-- something we all can applaud. In my opinion, it has been his never-ending quest for this body he loves to function not just ably but at a consistently high level. That has been his greatest contribution to the people he serves. Leader McConnell is concerned about the policy priorities of our party, of course, and he works doggedly to advance a conservative, right-of-center agenda, but he also cares deeply about this institution that he has committed so much of his life to serving and the pivotal role the Senate has always played in American history. He cares about upholding the rules and traditions of this body, not for their own sake but because they have simply withstood the test of time. We have made great strides this Congress under Leader McConnell's leadership. We passed the first overhaul of the Tax Code in more than three decades and allowed Americans to keep more of their hard-earned paychecks. We reformed Dodd-Frank legislation, freeing up banks and credit unions to better serve their communities by giving small businesses access to the credit they need in order to start that business and grow. We rolled back overly burdensome regulations and confirmed 39 judicial nominees, including a Supreme Court Justice and 21 circuit court judges. As Senator McConnell likes to remind us, these judges will serve long after this President's term of office and perhaps even our time in the Senate. This spring, we kept a solemn commitment we made to our veterans by making sure they have access to the healthcare choices which they need and which we have solemnly committed to provide. None of this would have been possible without Leader McConnell's deftly navigating around the stop signs and roadblocks that naturally occur in a place like the Senate and refusing to yield along the way to unprecedented levels of partisan obstruction. But we must not forget that Senator McConnell is a leader not only of our conference, but he also serves primarily on behalf of the people of Kentucky. He doesn't leave his full-time job behind when he puts on his leadership hat. He somehow has to balance the needs of both his constituents in Kentucky and the larger needs of the Senate and of the country as a whole. It goes without saying that balancing those competing demands is extraordinarily difficult. It is not for the faint of heart. But somehow Senator McConnell makes it look easy. He doesn't even seem to break a sweat, amazingly so. That is because people like Senator McConnell are versatile and energetic. On behalf of his fellow Kentuckians, he has recently championed the cause of international adoptions, ensured a healthcare fix for more than 3,000 retired coal miners, and supported military installations, such as Fort Campbell and Fort Knox. He has gotten more resources to strengthen Kentucky universities. He has helped his State combat the scourge of opioid addiction. He even helped a mother get her child back after she was abducted and taken to West Africa. These are just some of the recent ways he has served his State. As we know, Senator McConnell joined the Senate in 1984, so one could literally write volumes about his many other contributions over the past 3\1/2\ decades. He once said of the Senate what is no less true of all of us: We are all imperfect at moments, but we were permanently endowed with high purpose. For those familiar with the story of his own life, this sense of high purpose was seen early on. After overcoming polio at a young age, Leader McConnell went on to attend the University of Louisville, where he served as student body president and where he urged his classmates to march with Martin Luther King, Jr., on behalf of civil rights. He then became president of the student bar association in law school. This man was clearly born to lead. What was clear early in his life remains clear today: Leader McConnell is simply relentless. He never stops working, and in his view, we--both as a conference and a country--still have miles to go before we sleep. In addition to confirming the President's nominees, we have a packed to-do list this year that includes finishing the Defense bill this week, passing water infrastructure reform, as well as a farm bill, combating the opioid crisis, and reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration and the Coast Guard. None of this is easy, but one thing is certain: With Leader McConnell at the helm and with the hard work of those of us here in the Senate--on a bipartisan basis, hopefully--we will continue to make steady progress on behalf of the American people we serve. Thank you, Senator McConnell, for your example. Thank you for your mentorship and for your friendship, and congratulations once again on reaching this historic milestone today. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Kansas. I want to talk a little bit about a hearing I chaired yesterday, a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration hearing that was called ``Student Visa Integrity: Protecting Educational Opportunity and National Security.'' The point of the hearing was to raise awareness about a very serious issue and to hear from the Federal agencies responsible for our national security, visa policy, and the vetting of foreign nationals studying in the United States. We hoped to shed light on policies and procedures that are in place, what should be in place but is not, and to address what has become a growing source of concern; that is, foreign countries taking advantage of their international students studying in the United States and turning them into intelligence assets or otherwise using them to gain information that will help other countries grow their economy and their military in a way that undermines U.S. leadership in both of those areas. That issue relates primarily to China's aggressive plan to surpass the United States on all fronts--militarily, economically, and technologically--and to do so by whatever means necessary. We already know that China is perhaps the No. 1 abuser of cyber space to steal intellectual property and to use that to advance its economy or its military. They have been very public about their ultimate goal; that is, to use whatever means they need in order to advance their economy or their military. It is important to remember that China is not a democracy like ours. China is a Communist country guided by a doctrine that does not recognize the human rights or individual rights that we take for granted here in the United States and in other democracies. They made it very clear what they intend to do. For example, in its ``Made in China 2025'' strategy, which is something that has been published--you can read it yourself--China is accelerating its efforts to acquire U.S. intellectual property and sensitive research. That is where our universities in particular come in. Billions of Federal tax dollars--I think it is $178 billion in the Omnibus appropriations bill alone--are given to universities to conduct research to benefit the American people and hopefully all of humankind. Some of that research is sensitive because it is classified research. We had, for example, the head of security at the Texas A&M University System talk about the steps they have taken to protect that from prying eyes because of the sensitivity of some of that research. Universities are ground zero in this threat. This past February, Director Christopher Wray testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in an open hearing about the security risk posed by certain Chinese students, visiting scientists, and scholars at American colleges and universities. His remarks were brief, and because of the sensitive and classified aspects of some part of what he said, he couldn't provide the full context and breadth in that open setting, but what he did say publicly was alarming. He said that the FBI is ``watching warily'' and that ``naivete'' was exacerbating the problem. What I think he meant by that is that people were simply unaware and thus unprepared for what was happening. He also made very clear that the Chinese Government was intent on doing whatever it needed to do-- whether it is placing intelligence officers or other agents of the Chinese Government on campuses--to get the information they want. We are fortunate to have the world's top universities and colleges, and they are known for their open research, which fosters collaboration and innovation across a broad array of industry sectors and academic disciplines. One of the crown jewels of our country is our colleges and universities and the research they do, but our openness is also a vulnerability when being exploited by other countries for their own purposes. What is happening now, Director Wray says, is that foreign actors have taken advantage of that open environment and are using it to study, learn, and acquire sensitive information to the detriment of U.S. national security--and that is what we are primarily talking about here. It is not an isolated problem. Director Wray said that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is actively monitoring universities in all of its 56 field offices across the country, not just in major cities. Nearly all students and visiting scholars come for legitimate reasons. I take that as a given. We are not talking about everybody; we are talking about the isolated few. But the danger still remains. Most are here to learn and share our culture and to contribute their talents to America. I tend to think that our colleges and universities are the best elements of our soft power as a nation. When people come here and learn more about us and where we share values, perhaps even take those values back to their home country and serve as someone we can talk to and work with in the future, it promotes world peace, promotes mutual understanding, and, as I said, I think it is one of the most important elements of our soft power as a country. I am not here suggesting that we ought to conflate Chinese Communist Party influence on all students and academics--far from it. Students from across the world are certainly welcome; we welcome them with open arms to come to study at our colleges and universities, and I encourage them to explore opportunities to do so. What yesterday's hearing was actually about was not them but a small subset of people we should be concerned about--security risks, those who are here to steal and exploit our intellectual property and our national security and economic advantages, people who don't respect the rule of law as we do when it comes to intellectual property rights. As the FBI Director said, we can't be naive. This theft is occurring. It has been well documented, and we have to take the necessary preventive measures to ensure that it doesn't continue. By the way, I have mentioned one country, China, but certainly these concerns are not limited to China. There are more than 5,000 Russian students studying in the United States. There are other countries, including state sponsors of terrorism, like Iran, that have foreign students here, actively working to steal U.S. technology and bypass expensive research and development and exploit the student visa program to gain information that will benefit their countries. I will just pause for a moment to say that we spend untold amounts of money in this country--taxpayers' hard-earned money--to research and develop the newest, most innovative products. That is true in the military sector and in the nonmilitary sector. But when the American taxpayer pays to produce the necessary weapons and necessary infrastructure to protect us and our security, and other countries are actively trying to steal it and don't have to pay that research and development cost, we can see the obvious problem. Yesterday's hearing exposed a bigger problem, and that is the issue of competing global visions. Communist China makes no secret of the fact that Karl Marx is, in effect, their national hero. There was a week-long celebration in China just last month, which included a mandatory study session, led by President Xi, of Marx's famous work, ``The Communist Manifesto.'' Events like this show that China, while a rival, in some ways could be a wolf in sheep's clothing when it comes to its most aggressive tactics, which I mentioned just a moment ago. When it tries to present itself as a westernizing economy and a friend of the global community of nations, China conveniently ignores facts about its alternative development model and its state-controlled economy, the fact that it respects no law in pursuit of those policies. It also disguises and downplays its geopolitical aims--to rewrite the rules of our world order and recreate them in China's own image. Whether it is China's increasing belligerence in places like the South China Sea, its crushing of internal political dissent, its flagrant human rights violations, or its population controls--like the one-child policy, which I understand has now been relaxed, but parents are not free to have all the children they want. It is controlled by the government; you have to ask the government's permission--China has repeatedly shown itself as a power-hungry authoritarian country, willing and able to violate the rights of its own people and dismissive and contemptuous of international norms and international law. I don't intend to sound hyperbolic about this, but this is the truth. So let's not deceive ourselves into believing otherwise. That is what Director Christopher Wray of the FBI calls naivete. Let's not be naive. Let's be wary when China tries to just blend in internationally. Its rosy rhetoric and misleading narrative of cooperation are often camouflaged for its true and more troubling aims. We know that there are high-level negotiations between the United States and the Chinese Government on the issue of trade, and that is a good thing. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for one minute to wrap up.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I joined a number of other Senators, 27 Senators, to talk about ongoing trade negotiations with China. The main point of the letter was to emphasize that there is no question that China is actively seeking to surpass the United States economically and militarily. It is imperative that neither the Federal Government nor private U.S. companies abet that effort either deliberately or inadvertently. When it comes to China, national security isn't just a pretext for economic protectionism. It should not be. I, like many of my colleagues, believe strongly in free trade, and we shouldn't use national security as a pretext for economic protection. But the national security concerns are indeed real, for example, in the ZTE matter, which is a subject of some debate--as it should be--and discussion here in the Congress following the negotiation by Secretary Ross of a deal that he is proposing. For those of us who serve on the Intelligence Committee and on the Armed Services Committee, I assure you, the threat China poses is real, and the dangers we worry about are already taking effect. Our inaction could have only negative consequences, and we need to aim to prevent any future negative consequences for our country. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to begin my remarks by commending our colleagues in the House for taking up a bill later today that I introduced with the junior Senator from Michigan, Mr. Peters, and Congresswoman Comstock over in the House of Representatives. We passed this bill unanimously in the Senate in May. I know people believe that nothing happens in a bipartisan way around here and that certainly if it does happen, we are sharply divided somehow, but this bill passed unanimously, defying that suspicion or that intuition. Once the House passes it, it will be headed to the President's desk for his signature and will become the law of the land. This bill authorizes a program called Project Safe Neighborhoods, which is a nationwide partnership between Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities and prosecutors focused on reducing crime and improving public safety through stronger community partnerships and targeting the most serious criminal organizations and repeat offenders. Since its inception in 2001, Project Safe Neighborhoods has proved to reduce violent crime in cities with high participation rates, including double-digit reductions in firearms crimes and homicides. Let me say that again. Since 2001, where it has been used, those jurisdictions and those communities have seen double-digit reductions in firearms crimes and homicides. One of the most important elements of the program is a focus on criminal organizations. When Federal, State, and local law enforcement work together to focus on those who control criminal networks, we can defeat them outright. This will also bolster other efforts we are undertaking as the Federal Government to address gun violence and school safety. By the way, I commend Attorney General Sessions for ramping up prosecutions of gun-related crimes, especially the so-called lie-and- buy incidents, where people lie about or otherwise hide their criminal background in order to obtain firearms illegally. Now we have taken a big step to improve the criminal background check system used when somebody enters a sporting goods store or gun shop to buy a firearm. If you are a convicted felon, if you have been convicted of domestic violence, if you have been dishonorably discharged from the military, you cannot, under current law, purchase a firearm or possess a firearm legally. But what has happened--and we saw this in Sutherland Springs because of the broken background check system--often the derogatory or disqualifying information is not uploaded into the background check system, so people enter these sporting goods stores and purchase a firearm by lying, even though they are already disqualified under Federal law. We have taken a big step here in Congress on a bipartisan basis to shut that down. It is going to take some time to fix that system, so it is important in the interim, certainly, at least, to have the Department of Justice focus on those who lie and buy firearms illegally. Under Attorney General Sessions, enforcement of our existing gun laws has been dramatically improved. There was a 15-percent increase in all Federal gun prosecutions last year. People like me believe we ought to focus on the person, on the individual, and not on the instrumentality or the tool, because obviously law-abiding citizens are not a threat to public safety and certainly don't go out and commit crimes. But by focusing on criminals and people who are not legally qualified to purchase a firearm in the first place or possess one under current law, we can help improve public safety and lower the crime rate. What is happening under Attorney General Sessions and this administration is in great contrast to what we saw under Eric Holder, who often failed to enforce existing gun laws adequately against violent criminals. Those who illegally possess or purchase firearms must be held accountable, and I am glad to see the Congress and administration working together to ensure that happens. The Project Safe Neighborhoods Authorization Act is another important piece of our bipartisan commitment to reduce violent crime by focusing on the most serious offenders and improving law enforcement relations with the communities they serve. It is important that Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies work together in close coordination because then we can solve the most complex challenges that drive violent crime and make our communities safer. The Project Safe Neighborhoods Authorization Act is a significant step in that direction. Student Visa Program On another topic, Mr. President, this afternoon, I will be chairing a Judiciary subcommittee hearing titled ``Student Visa Integrity: Protecting Educational Opportunity and National Security.'' We are blessed in America with a world-class higher education and university system. Everybody wants to come to America to go to college or graduate school, and that is a good thing, by and large. The point of today's hearing, though, is to raise awareness about a very real issue that we must be diligently aware of and to hear from Federal agencies responsible for our national security, visa policy, and the vetting of foreign nationals because we know our open society here in America is also exploited by our adversaries for their own benefit and to undermine our national security at home. We hope to shed light on policies and procedures that are in place or should be in place to address what has become a growing source of concern. That issue primarily but not solely relates to China's aggressive activity to surpass the United States on all fronts-- militarily, economically, and technologically--and use whatever means necessary--legal or not, open or secret--to achieve their goals. The interesting thing about China is they have advertised their plans. They are there for the world to see, and all we need to do is read what they have said they intend to do. Through its ``Made in China 2025'' strategy, China is accelerating its efforts to acquire U.S. intellectual property and sensitive research, and that is where our universities come in. That is where most of the important research takes place. This past February, FBI Director Wray testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee about the security risks posed by certain foreign students, visiting scientists, and scholars at America's colleges and universities. Director Wray's remarks were brief, and because of the sensitive and classified nature of the issue, he could not provide the full context and breadth of the concerns in an open setting, but what he has said publicly is alarming. He said that the FBI is ``watching warily.'' He said that ``naivete'' was exacerbating the problem. I think that by ``naivete,'' he meant a lack of public awareness about the problem and thus a lack of vigilance on the part of our university systems and the public generally--that is what he was referring to as ``naivete''--and it is hurting our national security. He also said that the Chinese Government has been very aggressive about planting spies--foreign intelligence officers--on our university campuses and our research facilities in order to accomplish its goals. That is not the only way they are doing it, but that is a significant way they are trying to achieve the goals they set in ``Made in China 2025,'' enhancing their national security and robbing us of our technological advantage. Particularly when it comes to military-use technology, they are all in. It is an all-of-government approach. As I said, we are fortunate to have the top universities in the world, and they are known for their open research and development environment, which fosters collaboration and innovation across a broad array of industry sectors and academic disciplines. That is a good thing, but what is happening now, as Director Wray said, is that foreign actors are taking advantage of that environment--again, of our vulnerability as an open environment--and they are using it to study, learn, and acquire sensitive information, to the detriment of U.S. national security. This is not an isolated problem. Director Wray said the Bureau is monitoring universities from virtually all of its 56 field offices across the Nation, not just in major cities. So it is not just New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, or Houston; it is all across the country. Approximately 350,000 Chinese students are enrolled at U.S. universities--350,000. That is 35 percent of all foreign students in the United States. As those numbers suggest, there is ample opportunity for mischief. Most--and I want to emphasize the word ``most''--most students and visiting scholars come for legitimate reasons, and we welcome them. We should welcome them. They come here to learn, share our culture, and contribute their talents to the United States. I think our educational system here in America is one of the greatest elements of our soft power, where we invite foreign students to come to study in our colleges and universities and learn more about who we are and about our values and to take those back home and become natural allies with us in making the world a better and safer place. But it is important to note that the Chinese Communist Party, which dominates the Government in China, has the capacity to influence all students from that country who come here and the academics. I want to emphasize that this is not about restricting student visas. Students from across the world are welcome to come and study at our colleges and universities, and I encourage all of them to explore opportunities for them to do so. It is good for them, and it is good for us. What the hearing is about and what we should all be concerned about are security risks and the theft of intellectual property at our universities. Again, as the FBI Director said, we shouldn't be naive. This theft is occurring, it is well documented, and we have to take the necessary preventive measures to ensure that it doesn't continue to occur. While I have highlighted China's activities, these concerns are certainly not limited to one country. There are other countries, including state sponsors of terrorism, like Iran, that are actively working to steal U.S. technology, bypass expensive U.S. research and development, and exploit the student visa program to gain information that will benefit their countries. It seems like such a logical target for them. If they have no regard for the rule of law, if they can steal technology that we have spent years and billions of dollars to develop and acquire and implement, it is a huge economic advantage for them, and it helps catapult their national security apparatus in ways that eventually will overcome our national security structure itself. As one example, just this last March, the Department of Justice indicted 9 Iranian hackers who had stolen more than 31 terabytes of information, totaling $3 billion in intellectual property, from more than 300 American and foreign universities. While I have said that China is the biggest, most obvious culprit, there are others, as well, and we hope to discuss all of them in our hearing. Finally, let me say that our colleges and universities, again, have become a mecca for foreign nationals because of the high-quality education and the academic and cultural freedoms that exist in America. In order to preserve those crown jewels, we have to make sure that American research is protected and that the intellectual property developed in our colleges and universities is protected. Today's hearing in the Judiciary Committee about the student visa program is about protecting the educational atmosphere we have worked generations to build in this country. Again, our higher education system is the envy of the world. That is why students come here. They flock here, as many as can, in order to study at our colleges and universities. Again, this is a good thing. We need to hear how U.S. institutions and higher education can actively protect their most sensitive areas from potential intrusion from foreign states with less than honorable purposes and intent. In addition to the testimony we are going to hear from Federal agencies this afternoon at the hearing, we are going to hear from Texas A&M University, which has been recognized for its excellence in providing security for that research and intellectual property, which are targets for foreign actors. We are going to hear from NAFSA, the Association of International Educators, about the value and talent foreign nationals bring to the U.S. national education system. As these panelists will suggest, this is a complex problem. No one is suggesting that it is not. There are a lot of different angles to it, and we need to do our best to learn and listen from all sides and make good policy decisions about what we should do in response to this threat. I look forward to learning about how we can continue to open our doors to foreign students and, at the same time, protect ourselves from espionage and outright theft, which ultimately makes our country less safe. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to take just a few minutes to talk about the last 18 months and what a Republican-led Congress has done during the first 500 days of the Trump administration. I heard my friend the Democratic leader call this a Republican economy, and I am proud to embrace that for the reasons I will mention here in just a moment and contrast that to life in America postrecession, in 2008, where slow economic growth, high unemployment, and a disproportionate number of people not even seeking work were accepted as the new norm. The American people understand they don't have to accept that as the new normal--that we can aspire to better, and we can do better, and that is exactly what we have seen manifested in the American economy. The rank-and-file American worker, every American family, and everybody in this country--regardless of race, ethnicity, whatever identity you might want to talk about--have benefited. There have been many accomplishments, but perhaps the greatest, as I said, is the new energized state of the economy. There is a sense of hope and optimism once again. We can see that reflected in people's retirement accounts mainly invested in the stock market. The stock market has boomed since the Trump election, and that is not just for the big corporations. That is for the teachers, the pension funds, the firefighters, the first responders--for average Americans who invest their retirement savings in mutual funds or in the stock market--and they have benefited. The unemployment rate has reached a 48-year low--a 48-year low--and 14 States have hit record low unemployment as well. My friend from New York talked about gasoline prices. Oil output jumped to the highest on record in March, including a 4-percent increase in production in my home State. In other words, we are depending less and less on imported oil from Saudi Arabia and Middle East countries, which have been the focus of our geopolitics for so many years because they have been the main source of the energy that drives the world economy, and now we are producing more of that here in America. That means more jobs and more national security right here at home. Consumer confidence is at a 17-year high. People are feeling optimistic and hopeful about the future. Nearly 3 million jobs have been created since President Trump took office, including 304,000 in the manufacturing sector, 337,000 in construction, and 223,000 in May alone. What I hear time and again when I go back to Texas is employers saying: We are having a hard time finding the workers we need because there is so much demand for workers, for laborers, that now employers are having to compete for the workforce they need in order to perform the jobs they have now, as a result of the growing economy. What does that mean? It means that paychecks go up as there are labor shortages, and employers have to compete more for that workforce. Sixty-seven percent of Americans believe that now is a good time to find a quality job. The biggest challenge we have, given the rapidly evolving nature of our global economy and of technology and the jobs that are being created, is to train and equip the workforce of tomorrow for the jobs that will be available. That is why we have invested so much money in our community colleges and workforce training, in partnerships with industry--to make sure that more and more people can qualify for those good, well-paying jobs. I am thinking about a single mom, a Hispanic woman in Amarillo, TX, who worked as a jail guard--until she went to Amarillo community college and learned how to be an aircraft mechanic. Today, she works on the production line for the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, one of the most advanced air platforms in the world. My recollection is that she is making $18 an hour now. That is a real solution for a real problem, and I bet every Member of this Chamber could talk about similar stories. In Houston, as a result of the natural gas renaissance in this country--thanks to the science, thanks to the creativity and innovation of the American energy companies--we are now seeing a huge influx of petrochemical companies reestablishing themselves in places where they can get access to low-cost feedstock fuel. What that is doing is creating even more jobs. In the Pasadena Unified School District and around the Houston area, they are working with San Jacinto community college to help people who don't yet have the skills they need get the certificates they need in order to qualify for those good, well-paying jobs. Not everybody needs to go to a 4-year liberal arts college. If they want to, I am all for it. But many people want to get a good job, enjoying the solid middle class, and do jobs that need to be done. They need access to training in order to get the qualifications they need. That, to me, is one of the big challenges that confront us, particularly as the economy changes so quickly because of technology. Another big reason the economy has taken off like a rocket is the tax reform package we passed last summer. That has been perhaps the biggest game changer. The problem my friend the Democratic leader has is that every single Democrat voted against it. Remember, Nancy Pelosi called the benefits of that ``crumbs.'' What it has done is open doors and new opportunities for American families. According to the White House, American families will receive $3.2 trillion in gross tax cuts, and they have seen the child tax credit double. The top corporate rate was lowered from 35 to 21 percent so that American businesses could be more productive. When President Obama talked about the need for America to be more competitive by lowering that corporate rate, he talked about our need to compete in the global economy. When we debated the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Democrats called it a corporate giveaway. That is absolutely indefensible. The results of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act have been profound, indeed. More than 500 companies have used these tax savings to benefit their employees. They have announced pay raises, 401(k) match increases. There have been cuts to utility rates for seniors and people on fixed incomes because investor-owned utilities have had to lower their charges in order to comply with the law, which allows them a reasonable rate of return. They can't charge what the market will bear; they need to comply with their local laws. So what we have seen is that many investor-owned utilities have lowered utility rates for seniors and people on fixed incomes. We have seen other businesses offer substantial bonuses and other benefits. A recent survey by the National Association of Manufacturers showed that 77 percent of manufacturers in America intend to increase hiring, and 93 percent of them have a positive outlook. One of the things President Trump talked about during his campaign was that so much of our manufacturing had moved overseas. But what these numbers indicate is that the manufacturing sector is alive and well here in the United States when given the opportunity to compete on a level playing field. This is the kind of optimism I am hearing when I visit places like College Station, Austin, and Amarillo, home of the Big Texan 72-ounce steak. If you can eat it in an hour, along with a baked potato, you can get the meal for free. I didn't try that, but some people do, and some people get the free meal--but not a lot of people, would be my guess. In Austin, I visited with one of the owners of Wally's Burgers and met with other small businesses--pest control companies and the like-- and they talked about the benefits they are seeing in their small businesses from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The stories just go on and on and on. I have also had constituents write to my office, explaining how the boost in their monthly paychecks is making a big difference when it comes to buying groceries, paying bills, and starting long-delayed projects. Maybe no Democrat voter lives paycheck to paycheck, but I can tell you, some of my constituents do, and they appreciate the additional money in their paycheck as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I think what happened, when our Democratic colleagues unanimously voted against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, they were making a big bet that we would fail to deliver that bill, and it would somehow be an embarrassment and setback for this side of the aisle. Well, they bet against the American people, and they bet against our commitment to make sure the benefits of this bill would be delivered to the average American family. In one recent piece of news, Costco, which has ten locations in Texas, announced they would be increasing wages for 130,000 employees, not because the government mandated it but because they need to do that in order to be competitive, and they are passing the benefits on to their employees. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. Amidst all of this good news, we also need to remember that there are two specific targeted measures that are often overlooked. It repealed ObamaCare's burdensome tax on the middle class, who refused to purchase Washington-mandated health insurance. This is the so-called ObamaCare mandate. It basically was a tax on poor and middle-income people who couldn't afford to buy the high-price ObamaCare policies. We also opened up something that has been a point of contention for many, many years--the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy exploration. Senator Scott from South Carolina talked about his Opportunity Zone provision, which provides tax benefits to businesses that start a business and grow a business in poor and blighted areas. Senator Fischer from Nebraska talked about her tax provision, which provides encouragement to employers to provide family leave when families need that in order to deal with a family illness or a newborn child or whatever the case may be. Those are real and tangible benefits to the people we serve. And our colleagues want to talk about corporate giveaways? That is pure demagoguery, short and simple. What else do you have when you have made a bet and you lost that bet by betting against the benefits from this bill? It is not just the economy that deserves mention; another important accomplishment has been the confirmation of judges who will interpret the Constitution faithfully and say what the law is, not what, because of their personal policy preferences, they wish it might be. In a former life, I served on the bench--the State bench, not the Federal bench--for 13 years at the trial court level and on the Texas Supreme Court. I believe very strongly in the importance of having judges--that third branch of government--who will understand and appreciate their role in the U.S. Government. In other words, the reason we don't elect judges is because we don't expect them to gauge public opinion. The reason we don't expect them to campaign on an agenda--we expect them to interpret the law, including the Constitution of the United States, the fundamental law, not to promote policies based on their preference or based on some ideology. To me, that is the opposite of what we want judges to do. The Trump administration has seen confirmed 21 circuit court judges. These are the intermediate appeals court judges who essentially are the court of last resort for most cases since the U.S. Supreme Court now only hears about 80 cases a year. They provide the guidance in the most difficult cases, where the circuit courts are divided. This now means that one in eight appeals court judges has been appointed by President Trump and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. These are people who will serve not just 4 years, not just 6 years, not just 8 years, but perhaps 20 years or 30 years or longer--a lifetime tenure. These circuit courts will hear appeals from district courts that set binding precedent for those lower courts on a wide range of issues. It is worth pointing out that President Obama's 21st circuit court nominee was not confirmed until 33 months into his administration. So it is not just that we are confirming good judges; we are doing it at a very good clip, comparatively speaking. The President has appointed and we have confirmed two judges to the Fifth Circuit who serve the State of Texas--Don Willett, a former justice on the Texas Supreme Court, and Jim Ho, the former Texas solicitor general. We have one in the queue who has been voted out of committee, Andy Oldham, the counsel to our Governor, who has been nominated to the Fifth Circuit. And that is not to mention some very talented district judges, the people who are at the ground level of our civil justice system, people like Karen Scholer and David Counts. We hope to have one more Federal district judge confirmed before the end of this week--Fernando Rodriguez, whom Senator Cruz and I recommended to the President and he has nominated. The other major accomplishment of this administration over the last 18 months is repealing burdensome overregulation from the previous administration. Many of these regulations were passed by the Obama administration as they were heading out the door, without a real opportunity for public input and review. We have repealed a historic number--16 of them--using the Congressional Review Act. Previously, there had been only one example where Congress had repealed a regulation using the Congressional Review Act. Thanks to the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, we have also repealed something that was a bullying tactic by the Federal Government. This was a scheme by the previous administration to use guidance from Federal agencies where they didn't pass a rule, where they were required under the law to gain input as part of that rulemaking process. So what they would do is they would issue guidance. You can imagine how that was treated by people in the private sector. They didn't want to have to defend a lawsuit, so they grudgingly complied with the guidance even though there wasn't any process and input from the public on what that guidance should be. Thanks again to our colleague Senator Toomey, we have successfully repealed those sorts of quasi-regulations, as well, using the Congressional Review Act. Our use of the Congressional Review Act has been referred to as the most ambitious regulatory rollback since Ronald Reagan. As I talk to people, the job creators in our country, they tell me that not only has it been the tax cuts, but it has been the regulatory rollback and it has been the signal that Washington is sending that businesses small and large will have more freedom to pursue their ends, their dreams, without the wet blanket of government regulation. President Trump has also used his executive branch pen to issue 22 deregulatory actions for every new regulatory one. These are big wins, including for our farmers and energy producers. On top of that, when it comes to ObamaCare, one of the aspects of ObamaCare was something called the Independent Payment Advisory Board. We repealed that in our budget agreement earlier this year, which will allow seniors and their families to take greater control of their healthcare decisions without being subjected to the whims of unelected bureaucrats. What ``unelected bureaucrats'' translates into is ``unaccountable bureaucrats.'' In other words, if you don't like what the bureaucrat is doing, you have almost no recourse, and that is by design in this Independent Payment Advisory Board. When it comes to your healthcare, you want to maintain your ability to petition your representatives if you feel the government is not treating you correctly, which this Independent Payment Advisory Board eliminated. A fourth major accomplishment is providing relief to our community and midsized financial institutions, which have been hit hardest by some of the one-size-fits-all rulemaking approaches under Dodd-Frank. We all remember that Dodd-Frank was a response to the financial crisis of 2008, followed by the great recession. Congress, as it often does, went too far. The pendulum swung too far and affected our community banks and credit unions. I tell my community bankers in Texas: You weren't the target, perhaps, but you were the collateral damage. We want small businesses and working families to succeed. We want them to get access to credit, the credit they need in order to succeed. Regulating community banks out of business is not the answer. This bill was sponsored by the senior Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, and was passed on a bipartisan basis. This bill, which just passed the House, is a big win for smaller financial institutions, and it will make it easier for them to serve their communities by approving mortgages, providing credit, and lending to small businesses. This isn't mainly a win for the small banks; this is a win for their customers, for the small businesses and individuals who need access to the credit they could not get under the status quo. Another thing that we have done recently which I think bears note-- unfortunately, so much happens in Washington, and it seems like every 15 minutes there is breaking news, and sometimes we overlook and don't celebrate these great victories, in this case on behalf of our veterans. We have been accomplishing a lot for our servicemembers and veterans. Last year, we helped restore America's defense with the greatest investment in our military in 15 years and largest troop pay increase in 8 years. We have a bad habit here in Congress: After we have fought a war, we begin to think we can cash the peace dividend. We start to think, OK, now the world is safe, and now we can roll back our money spent on national security. Unfortunately, the world continues to be a dangerous place, and the world needs American leadership. Unfortunately, that is expensive, but there really is no option because if we don't have peace, if we don't have stability, none of the other benefits of life-- liberty and the pursuit of happiness--can exist. Getting back to our veterans, we passed the VA MISSION Act in the last couple of weeks, which will make significant reforms to the Department of Veterans Affairs, strengthening the healthcare and community care options that are available to American veterans. This bill provided $5.2 billion for the Veterans Choice Program. For example, if you are a veteran and you call to make an appointment and they say ``Well, come see us in August'' and you can't wait, or if you have to drive 100 or 200 miles--and in the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas, if you really need to go to the veterans hospital, you have to drive all the way to San Antonio to get your healthcare--what the act did and what we passed on a bipartisan basis allows veterans a choice. You can go see a local healthcare provider, and you can go to a local hospital if they can provide that service quicker and more efficiently. We also provided for expanded caregiver assistance. This is a big deal. The times I have been to Walter Reed visiting Texans who were injured in Afghanistan or Iraq, frequently that injured servicemember had a spouse or family member who basically would have to give up their job in order to take care of their injured spouse. It is only right and it is only just that we provide expanded caregiver assistance to those individuals who do that. Finally, we have seen a crackdown on imported illegal drugs. As of April, the Border Patrol had seized 284 pounds of fentanyl--already greatly surpassing the total amount seized in fiscal year 2017. I don't have to repeat what a devastating impact the opioid crisis-- prescription drugs or the alternatives, which are heroin and fentanyl-- has had on our communities. These are just a handful of ways we are doing what the American people elected us to do. We put money back in their pockets. We rolled back regulations. We strengthened our military. We have given healthcare flexibility to our veterans. We protected our communities from harm. The best part of this story is, we are just getting started.

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

Mr. CORNYN

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