John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

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 Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this week, we will be taking up the National Defense Authorization Act, which Congress has passed for 57 consecutive years to support and guide our country's military. Earlier this month, the Armed Services Committee voted overwhelmingly--25 to 2--to advance this important legislation to the Senate floor, so when I hear people say that there is no bipartisan consensus for anything in Washington these days, I think that is belied by the facts and certainly in this case by our bipartisan commitment to provide that support and guidance for our Nation's military. According to the Department of Defense, there are 1.8 million Americans around the world on Active Duty in the U.S. military. The United States has 737 installations overseas, and the DOD--the Department of Defense--is the world's largest employer. Supporting all these people and the facilities they occupy is a Herculean task, and the Defense authorization bill is one very significant way that we do just that. It is how we make sure that all of our American servicemembers are trained, equipped, and paid and that our alliances are strengthened and our military facilities are properly modernized and maintained. We have an All-Volunteer military, and it is important for us to do all of these things in terms of quality of life, in addition to the basics, to prepare our warriors for hopefully an avoidable fight, but when it is unavoidable, to prepare them for that conflict. In Texas, there are roughly 200,000 military men and women stationed in places like Fort Hood, Joint Base San Antonio, the Red River Army Depot, and Ellington Field. These are the people I think about as we take up this Defense authorization bill. They rely on us to deliver what we have asked them to do, to give them the tools, the equipment, and the training to do what we have asked them to do. That goal is increasingly difficult because the world is a very complex and dangerous place. The array of national security threats facing the United States is more complex and diverse than at any time since World War II. Our leadership at the Pentagon says that the strategic environment has not been this competitive since the Cold War. Simply put, America no longer enjoys the competitive edge it once had over our competitors and adversaries. Secretary Mattis and the Department of Defense have admirably crafted the national defense strategy that was delivered to Congress earlier this year laying out its strategic goal. This was a critical first step, but now the strategy must be implemented. The Defense authorization bill will align that strategy with the resources necessary to implement it--the investments, the policies, the authorizations--with the new orientation articulated in that strategy. The Secretary of Defense will reevaluate the highest priority missions for the Department of Defense, the roles of the joint force, as well as the capabilities required to complete these missions. All told, in its current form, the Defense authorization will support $716 billion for our national defense. To those who would think that the price is too high, I would say there is no option. There is no nation in the world that is as capable of keeping the peace and deterring aggressors around the world. In fact, the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government is to provide for our common defense. All of the rights that we enjoy in this great country of ours flow from the freedoms that are protected by our men and women in uniform. We have seen what has happened in the last few years when America has receded and retreated from its leadership role. We don't have to fight all of these fights on our own. As General Mattis says, it is appropriate for Americans to fight by, with, and through our allies, which is the strategy we are using now rather than placing boots on the ground in many of these locations. One important piece of the bill is bolstering recruitment, retention, and effectiveness of our Armed Forces. A second important piece that was included in the committee markup of the NDAA is legislation I introduced called the Children of the Military Protection Act. This will close a jurisdictional loophole affecting military installations when minors commit criminal offenses on base. Because it is a military base, the Federal Government has the jurisdiction, but frequently Federal prosecutors don't have the time or the resources to prosecute the cases, so they fall through the cracks. This legislation will allow Federal prosecutors to relinquish jurisdiction to the State in these instances, 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. I am proud to join with Senator King, the junior Senator from Maine, in this effort. This is a bipartisan priority that Members on both sides of the aisle should rally behind. Our children on our military bases must be protected at all costs. When they are assaulted, their assailant should not escape justice because of loopholes in the law. Although the Federal Government maintains jurisdiction over military bases, as I have said, unfortunately, it does not always assert its prosecutorial authority. Historically, Federal prosecutors have pursued roughly 15 percent of juvenile sex offense cases, and that is clearly not enough. We have to address this black hole for juvenile justice. We have to give local prosecutors the authority they need to go after these cases on our bases with the agreement of the Federal authorities. I look forward to my legislation being a part of the NDAA when we vote on it perhaps as soon as next week. There is one final aspect of the Defense authorization bill I would like to touch on, and it involves how we address future threats to our national security. I have spoken quite a bit on the floor about the threat China poses to the United States, and they are not even coy about it. They have told us what their plan is. Their plan is to grow their economy and to grow their military in a way that dwarfs the power and economy of the United States. Let me talk a little bit about the threat. I have spoken about that threat, but let me quote the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who 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.'' Of course, my friend Congressman Mac Thornberry is talking about China, ``the competitor,'' and the ``belligerent threat'' he identified was North Korea. That is why this year's Defense authorization bill, among other goals, prioritizes military readiness in the region and strengthens our key partnerships there. It promotes security and stability in the Indo- Pacific through exercises with our allies and supports improving Taiwan's defense capabilities. Even more important, the Defense authorization bill will include legislation I coauthored, along with the senior Senator from California Mrs. Feinstein, 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, in fact, they are an arm of the Communist Party and the leadership in that country. As has been well documented, China is intent upon, No. 1, stealing our intellectual property, and when they can't do that, strategically investing to get access to both the intellectual property and the know- how to be able to take advantage of all the research and development expenditures we have made in our country and to short circuit that in developing their equivalent. Our legislation will modernize the review process of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and ensure that we are better protected from these sophisticated threats and help us maintain our technological edge in the national defense realm, but, as I said earlier, the Defense authorization bill is important for reasons that hit much closer to home. In years past, this bill has authorized needed improvements at our military facilities. It has given our troops a much needed and much deserved pay raise and updated advanced aircraft, ships, and ground vehicles. These, too, have implications in all of our States, and Texas is no exception. So when I vote on the Defense authorization bill, I will be thinking about servicemembers back in my State in addition to all those who serve in remote locations overseas. We need to get the Defense authorization bill across the finish line for them and for our country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young).

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this weekend, we honor those who have fought on the frontlines in battle and made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the United States of America. These men and women represent America at its best--a nation that is restless and unwavering in combating tyranny, that facilitates peace, and defends human rights and individual liberty across the globe; a nation that is unafraid to call evil by its name and then works to eradicate it through force, if necessary, even at great cost to itself and its own people. Today, in advance of the holiday weekend, I say thank you to the 200,000 military men and women who are stationed in my State, the State of Texas, and to the 1.7 million veterans who call Texas home. Thank you for having served over the course of so many years in the face of so many dangers and at such great individual sacrifice. Of course, many of their predecessors gave their lives defending this country on the bloody fields of Gettysburg, in the trenches of the Western Front, during the storming of the beaches at Normandy, and during the Shock and Awe in Baghdad. These are just some examples, each of them unique but none of which we should ever forget. We must also thank the military families of those warriors. I pray they find peace on Monday, when many of them will place flowers on military grave sites and speak privately to their loved ones who have passed on. In just a few days, I will have the chance to speak to young Texans who thought hard about their futures and the future of our country and decided they want to attend our U.S. military academies. These talented high school students are the cream of the crop. They have been accepted to our Nation's five prestigious military service academies, and they will be gathering together, on Monday, in San Antonio. Even though I am not the one who has nominated all of them, we invite everyone who has been nominated--and their families--to come to this academy sendoff. This sendoff is something I look forward to each year because it is an inspiration to me. At a time when people talk about the next generation and America's future, they reassure me that our country still produces talented, patriotic young men and women who want to serve their country and want to preserve our freedom. Meeting these young people who are making such bold and selfless decisions speaks well of the character of our Nation's next generation. Then I will be heading down to Georgetown, TX, which is just outside of Austin, to a community called Sun City, which has a large veteran population. There, I will join in celebrating Memorial Day in a place where patriotism is not a dirty word. In Sun City, it is not an act either. Loving one's country and honoring fallen soldiers is simply a given, and I know there will be a lot of American flags on full display. In the few days leading up to Memorial Day, we should also reflect on our duty as Members of Congress and as a nation to support our military servicemembers and their families and ask whether we are living up to our end of the bargain in Washington, DC. Just yesterday, we took a very important step in that regard by passing the VA MISSION Act, which includes some of the most substantial reforms to the veterans' healthcare system that have been made in years. It lowers the barriers to care for veterans and gives them more treatment options. It also simplifies the bureaucratic system of community care programs and streamlines them from seven to one. It expands the family caregivers program, which I became convinced was important after having visited wounded warriors at Walter Reed. Frequently, because of the catastrophic injuries they have suffered, a spouse has had to quit his or her job and basically tend to the needs of that wounded warrior, just as a practical matter, and provide assistance in addition to the medical care that has been received. Expanding the family caregivers program is, I think, a step in the right direction. In this bill, we also address opioid prescription guidelines for outside providers and encourage the hiring and retention of more Veterans Health Administration healthcare professionals. So there is a lot to talk about when we go home for Memorial Day, and I look forward to talking to our Active-Duty military and our veterans and to demonstrating that we are doing more than just talking about it; we are actually doing something that will make a difference in their lives. Upon our return, I am also looking forward to continuing our hard work on the National Defense Authorization Act, which is something the Presiding Officer is intimately involved in, which was marked up yesterday in the Armed Services Committee. For 57 straight years, a Defense authorization bill has been signed into law by Presidents of both parties and through the hard work of congressional majorities that have been led by both parties. This year's legislation will help ensure our military has what it needs to achieve the most difficult missions they have ever faced and to embark on those that will inevitably arise tomorrow. I have spoken quite a bit about the China threat recently at this podium, and that country bears mentioning again, right now, because of its connection to the Defense Authorization Act. As the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said recently, it is ``[i]n 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.'' China is that longer term strategic competitor, of course, and that is what Congressman Mac Thornberry was talking about. Yet we can't just stop with China and North Korea. We need to talk about Russia, Iran, and the civil war and terrorist threat arising out of Syria and the Middle East. All of those are important in our deliberations on the Defense authorization bill because the NDAA prioritizes military readiness across the globe where American leadership remains indispensable. It promotes security and stability in the Indo-Pacific, particularly through military exercises with our allies, and it improves Taiwan's defense capabilities while we keep our commitment to Taiwan that was established a long time ago. The Defense authorization bill is important for reasons that hit much closer to home as well. In past years, this bill has authorized needed improvements at Texas military facilities like Fort Hood, Joint Base San Antonio, the Red River Army Depot, and Ellington Field. It has also given our troops a much needed pay raise and updated advanced aircraft, ships, and ground vehicles. All of these have implications in Texas. As we get closer and closer to Memorial Day, let's remember what our Armed Forces have given for us, including their very lives, and everything they have given to us, which is our freedom that we enjoy every day. Let's make sure we keep up our end of the bargain here in Washington with legislation like the VA MISSION Act and the Defense authorization bill and at home with our patriotism and our frequent signs of appreciation for their service to our great country.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

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, yesterday the Senate Banking Committee passed a very important piece of legislation out of the committee by a unanimous vote. I am very pleased that this legislation, which I will describe in a moment, received that sort of broad bipartisan support. This is a bill I originally introduced with the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, to strengthen the review process of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which plays a critical role in protecting our national security. The jurisdiction of this Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States hasn't been updated in more than 40 years, and bad actors like China continue to exploit gaps in the process to acquire sensitive national security know-how, as well as military and dual-use technology from U.S. companies. I want to be quick to say that this is not about labeling foreign investment in the United States as bad. That is not true. Foreign investment is by and large a very good thing. But when our laws are being exploited to target cutting-edge, dual-use technology that has national security applications, that is a matter of national security. This is not about banning or labeling foreign investment as being bad. I appreciate Chairman Crapo and the Banking Committee's bipartisan work in advancing this narrowly tailored legislation to close the gaps that I just mentioned and safeguard our national security because I believe it is past time for us to do so. Every day we fail to pass this set of reforms is a day we are putting our future in jeopardy. We need to maintain a sense of urgency and realize that when we are talking about CFIUS, or the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, there is a much bigger issue at stake, and that is the issue of competing global visions. China makes no secret about the fact that Karl Marx is, in many ways, its national hero. In fact, there was a weeklong celebration in China earlier this month which included a mandatory study session, led by President Xi, of Marx's famous work the Communist Manifesto. Events like these in some ways show that China is a wolf in sheep's clothing. When it tries to present itself as westernizing its economy and becoming a friend to the global community of nations, China conveniently ignores certain facts about its alternative development model and state-controlled economy. It also tends to disguise and downplay its overall geopolitical aims, to rewrite the rules of our world order and recreate them in China's own Communist 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, such as the one-child policy, China has repeatedly shown itself as a power- hungry authoritarian, willing and able to violate the rights of its own people, and dismissive and contemptuous of international norms. I am not being hyperbolic. I am not exaggerating. This is just the truth--the hard truth--in front of us, if we will look. So let's not deceive ourselves otherwise. When China tries to just ``blend in'' internationally, let us be wary that its rosy rhetoric and misleading narrative of cooperation are often camouflage for its true and more troubling aims. As we all know, right now, there are high-level negotiations ongoing between the U.S. executive branch and Chinese Government officials on the very important issue of international trade, but it is important to remember that in the West, belief in free trade is almost axiomatic. In democracies like ours, free trade is based on open markets, the free flow of capital and information, as well as the rule of law. China, on the other hand, honors none of those things. It doesn't believe in open markets, it doesn't believe in the free flow of capital of information, and it be doesn't believe in the rule of law. That reality is why we need to approach these trade negotiations delicately. We need to remain steely-eyed and make sure China isn't playing us for fools. Of course, we are well aware of the need to tread lightly when it comes to trade. After decades of globalization, any overly broad limits on Chinese investment in the United States could harm American companies that need capital and customers to survive and grow. We need to resist that temptation. China is not just any old trading partner. Its enterprises are state- backed, and there is no clear dividing line between the Communist Party and what might otherwise be described as the private sector. There is no distinction. This makes a real difference when it comes to Chinese investments in U.S. companies that are at the cutting edge of developing military dual-use technologies. It means there is a real potential of industrial espionage because you can't separate private, profit-making motives from the government's secret-stealing capacities and proclivities, and this means that our national security is vulnerable. In its Made in China 2025 plan, the Chinese Government made clear its intent to dominate technologies that will be essential down the road in maintaining our economic and military prowess globally. I have a chart here that I would like to display. It is an unclassified slide from one of our intelligence agencies. They provided us an unclassified version so that we could talk about it in public. Many of us on the Armed Services Committee or the Intelligence Committee are privy to classified briefings, but I believe it is important--and I am glad they do too--that we talk about what we can in an open, transparent way so that people can be alerted to what is at risk and what is actually going on. These are China's strategic goals. Comprehensive national power--they see themselves as a rival to the United States, and they would ultimately like to surpass us when it comes to national power. We know that they believe their economic growth model must be innovation- driven; hence, their vacuuming up and relentless search for new, cutting-edge technology, including their activities in places like Silicon Valley, where they gobble up startup companies that have long- term potential to advance their economic and national power goals. Obviously, they are also modernizing their military and becoming increasingly belligerent in places like the South China Sea in the process. How does China achieve these strategic goals? Well, it has an elaborate and sophisticated plan. The truth is, they are really not being clandestine or secretive about this. They are pretty much telling us what they are doing, and they are doing it quite well. So their strategic goals include, obviously, their security services, their intelligence community, their talent recruitment programs at American academic institutions, where they hire talent back to China to help them in this process. They create front companies that claim to be non-Chinese related in order to transact business so that they don't raise suspicion. They engage in an active program of mergers and acquisitions of companies in the United States. They make significant investments in science and technology, including some of the most cutting-edge technologies, like quantum computing and artificial intelligence. They are probably the worst offender in the world when it comes to stealing through the cyber domain--cyber theft. They are very creative in engaging in research partnerships. Joint ventures, one of the gaps that the CFIUS legislation intends to plug, where they realize that this is a gap in our current review process for foreign investment and national security implications--they have done so through joint ventures that aren't currently subject to that review, where they can get access not only to the intellectual property but also to the know- how. In other words, they could steal blueprints and other intellectual property, but they don't necessarily know how to make it all work-- where the secret sauce is--until they can get access to the know-how through these joint ventures. Then there are their nontraditional collectors. In other words, civilians are used by their intelligence services to get information to vacuum up data--scientific data, our data--that they may think are important to their pursuit of national power, innovation, and economic growth model, so they use a wide variety of nontraditional collectors as well. Of course, in the legal and regulatory environment, an American company can't do business in China without basically turning over the keys to the government. Again, there is no delineation between the government and the private sector in China. All businesses have to cooperate with the Chinese Government, and the Chinese Government intermingles that information not only in pursuit of their economic goals but also in pursuit of their military goals. As I said, these technologies that they are acquiring and seeking to acquire include artificial intelligence, robotics, quantum computing, and 3D printing. The Chinese Government is spending $300 billion in subsidies to supplant foreign technology suppliers like ours with homegrown alternatives, and a core part of this 2025 plan is acquiring intellectual property from the United States. China is not even trying to hide it. They are advertising it, and they are doing it in plain sight. Those and related concerns are what prompted a bipartisan group of 27 Senators recently to write a letter to Secretary Mnuchin, Secretary Ross, as well as Ambassador Lighthizer--the U.S. trade Representative. They are all involved in the ongoing trade negotiations with China. In that letter, we expressed concerns regarding China's targeting of our technology. As a report issued by the Pentagon recently pointed out, if left unchecked, this targeting could degrade core technological advantages of the U.S. military. Clearly, the Chinese Communist Party regards these sensitive technologies as essential for China's military modernization and is accelerating its efforts to acquire them by any means necessary--stealing them, engaging in strategic investments, any way they can do it--whether it is cyber theft, civil-military integration policies, coercion through joint ventures with foreign companies, targeted investment, or Chinese nationals exploiting access to such technologies here in the United States. The main point of our letter was not to criticize but to alert our colleagues in the executive branch that there is no question that China is actively seeking to surpass the United States both economically and militarily and become the world's foremost superpower. It is pretty obvious. It is imperative, though, that neither the Federal Government nor private U.S. companies aid or abet that effort either advertently or inadvertently. Let me conclude by saying that we should all support a peaceful, balanced, and constructive relationship with China, but it has to be realistic when it comes to China's aims and intentions, and it needs to be informed, as well, by China's record of deception in the past. When it comes to China, national security isn't just a pretext for economic protectionism. I think ``national security'' is an abuse of that label if it is used just as a pretext for protectionism. Like many of our colleagues, I believe strongly in free trade, as I started out saying in these remarks, but when national security and economic concerns overlap--which they do--there should be no question but that our national security comes first. For those of us who serve on committees of jurisdiction involving intelligence or national security, I assure you that the Chinese threat is real, and certain dangers are already taking effect. We need to make sure that not just the committees of jurisdiction understand this and that we are working together with the executive branch when it comes to maintaining this distinction--economic and military--and understand that it is not just about trade; it is about our national security as well. We need to be smart, well informed, and clear-eyed when it comes to engaging with an aggressive China. Our inaction has had many negative consequences, and we must aim to prevent any future ones.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I move to table the motion to concur with amendment.

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

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am sure I am not unique in the fact that when I go home, my constituents ask: What in the heck is going on up there? The truth is, amid the polarization, the misinformation, the arguments, the disagreements we naturally will have--because we represent different parties, different regions, and different points of view--it is really important to occasionally reflect on what it is we have actually done because, as I learned a long time ago as a journalism student, good news is not news. What makes news is when there is conflict and disagreement. That is what people pay attention to. That is what reporters write about, that is what the cable TV channels run because they know people will watch it. They can sell advertising. That is sort of the way the system works. Good news needs to be told and needs to be spread. So what I would like to do is just reflect for a few minutes on the last 17 months and what has been accomplished during that year and a half by a Republican- led Congress and by the Trump administration working together. I think, perhaps, the single biggest accomplishment that has benefited the most people broadly across this great land of ours is the new energized state of our economy. During the last administration, following the great recession of 2008, we had this ahistorical idea that slow economic growth was the new norm; that sub-2 percent economic growth each year--which isn't fast enough to create enough jobs to keep people employed--was something we were just going to have to live with. The fact is, since World War II, the economy has not grown at 2 percent or less; it has grown at about 3.2 percent. What we are beginning to see is the slumbering giant of the American economy wake up and grow. People have confidence again and optimism in the future, which is a good thing. Unemployment fell to 3.9 percent recently, which is the lowest in 17 years, and 14 States hit record-low unemployment as well. As I said, consumer confidence is high. As a matter of fact, it is at an 18-year high, and the tax reform package we passed last December has been the biggest, single game-changer. Although, I want to talk about regulations in a minute, the tax reform package got America back in the game. It made us more competitive globally as a place where people who want to invest money and create a business or grow their business--it is attractive, finally. We aren't chasing people off, having to move offshore in order to compete globally. They now see America as a favorable place to invest, and that benefits all of us. Nearly 800,000 jobs have been created, 164,000 in April alone. To me, one of the most encouraging statistics is, in February, we saw more than 800,000 people rejoin the workforce. Unemployment statistics, as the Presiding Officer knows, can be a little bit misleading because sometimes when people quit looking for work, they are not reflected in the unemployment statistics, even though they are obviously unemployed. The fact that 800,000-plus Americans decided to rejoin the workforce because they thought there was a real chance they could get a good- paying job ought to be enormously encouraging to all of us. It is to me. In addition to the new jobs, in addition to more people joining the workforce, we have seen people who are working receive pay raises, more take-home pay. The retirement contribution their employers made to their 401(k) plan went up in hundreds of different cases. We have also seen people see a reduction in their utility rates--the amount of money they pay for electricity--because the for-profit utilities saw a cut in their taxable revenue, and because they are utilities they had to lower the rates in order to meet the requirements of the regulators. We have seen bonuses being paid by large companies, like AT&T in Texas, and commitments made to invest in more infrastructure. We have seen benefits across the board. The National Association of Manufacturers says that 77 percent of manufacturers in America intend to increase hiring, and 93 percent of them have a positive outlook for their companies. That is the kind of optimism I feel and hear when I travel back home. In visits to Amarillo, College Station, Austin, and elsewhere, I have had the chance and taken the opportunity to sit down and talk to my constituents in those places and ask: How is it going? How are we doing? How are you doing? What I hear from small business owners regularly is the benefits they are seeing from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. 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 making ends meet, buying groceries, paying their bills, or affording health insurance. I alluded to this a moment ago, but one recent piece of news had the Southwestern Electric Power Company announce it had requested its utility rates be lower. Actually, it probably didn't request it be lowered, but they were lowered as a result of their lower overhead as a result of their tax bill going down. Southwestern has more than 180,000 Texas customers and attributed the rate decreases directly to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I would say that is a good thing. When seniors and people on fixed incomes actually see their utility rates go down, it helps them make ends meet. Entergy Texas, another electric utility, has similar plans to return tax savings to customers and support continued investment. Those two companies are just the tip of the iceberg. The economy is booming, so much so that employers tell me it is hard to find qualified workers. We need to double down on our commitment to make sure we provide people access to the education and training they need to qualify for the new, high-paying jobs that exist. But, simply, those jobs can't always be filled because there are not enough trained workers to perform them. It is not just the economy that deserves our mention. One of the most significant things that the Trump administration has done is nominate and see the Senate confirm a record number of judges--judges who, by the way, are committed to faithfully interpreting the Constitution and not legislating from the bench because of their personal preferences. If you want to pursue a personal agenda or political agenda, you ought to run for Congress, not seek the Federal bench. We expect and demand something different out of judges, which is faithful adherence to the law, not imposing their personal policy preferences. That is what President Trump has prioritized in his nominees and the nominees we have confirmed. Twenty-one circuit court judges have been confirmed so far. That is roughly one-eighth of the appeals court judges in the United States. These circuit courts hear appeals from Federal district courts, trial courts, and, as the Presiding Officer knows, set binding precedent on a wide range of issues. I like to say that for all practical purposes, the circuit courts are the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court of the United States hears roughly 80 cases a year. They obviously set the precedent, but there are a lot of cases that never reach the Supreme Court, and their final court of last resort is the circuit court. That means the men and women presiding over those courts--the way they approach their judicial decision making--is making a real difference. As I said, with the help of the Senate, President Trump has secured confirmation for 21 circuit court nominees. It is worth pointing out that President Obama's 21st circuit court nominee was not confirmed until he was in office for 33 months. It is not just that we are confirming good judges; it is that we are doing so at a good clip, comparatively speaking. These judges include people like Don Willett, former justice of the Texas Supreme Court; Jim Ho, the former Texas solicitor general; and soon, Andy Oldham, the general counsel to Governor Greg Abbott, who has been nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. That is not to mention the very talented district court judges we have confirmed as well. Two of them, Karen Scholer and David Counts, are Texans, and both my State and the entire Federal judiciary are lucky to have them. The third thing I want to mention in terms of the economy is regulations because of what we have been able to do, working with the President when it comes to the regulatory state--the bureaucracy, the nameless, faceless entities that make life either easier or more difficult for small businesses. We have had a big impact. Specifically, we have repealed burdensome Obama-era regulations through the Congressional Review Act. It has been said before--and I will say it again--that in all of Senate history, it had been used only one time before; that is, to repeal the ergonomics rule. We have used it 16 times to eliminate agency rules that had found their way into law during the waning hours of the previous administration. This effort--the Congressional Review Act effort--has been spearheaded by people like the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, among others. It has eliminated rules like coal mining regulation that would have put more than 100,000 jobs at risk and another one enacted by the Department of Education that undermined local control of schools and directly violated a Federal statute at least 7 times. Our use of the Congressional Review Act has been referred to as a ``regulatory wrecking ball'' and the ``most ambitious regulatory rollback since [President Ronald] Reagan.'' I don't agree it has been a wrecking ball. I think it has been more of a surgical operation. It has provided a signal to businesses, as well as real regulatory relief in those 16 specific cases. I think that is another reason for optimism in the sense that the Federal Government is no longer tying one hand behind the backs of our job creators. Another important development has been finally rolling back some of the overregulation of Dodd-Frank. You will recall this was legislation that passed following the great meltdown recession of 2008. Like most things that happen in Washington, DC, the pendulum swung way too far. I tell my community bankers and the credit unions in Texas: You weren't the target, but you were the collateral damage. They didn't cause the great recession of 2008, the subprime mortgage lending crisis; that was the big boys on Wall Street. Thanks to Senator Crapo and the Banking Committee and a bipartisan effort in the Senate, we finally pulled back some of the overregulation. If small community banks were going to be able to stay in business, they were required to hire people just to fill out the paperwork--not to make more loans but to fill out the paperwork. Many of them couldn't survive at all, so they had to merge or just go away. The people who got hurt the most were the people who needed access to credit--again, our small businesses. Thankfully, this bill is now expected to pass the House this week, and it will be a big win for smaller financial institutions and make it easier for them to serve their communities by providing mortgages, providing credit, and lending to small businesses. That is the past. Let's take a peek forward to this next week. This week, we will keep our commitment to our veterans--people who have worn the uniform of the U.S. military and who have served us so well and to whom we have a moral obligation, I believe, to keep our commitments to them--the promises we made to them when they were on Active Duty that when they left Active Duty, we would keep our commitments. We will do that when we vote on the VA MISSION Act this week. This is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that will make significant reforms to the Department of Veterans Affairs. It will strengthen the healthcare and community care options that are available to America's veterans. It will provide $5.2 billion to the much needed Choice funding program to prevent interruption of access to needed care for veterans. In other words, we have said: If you are a veteran and can't get to a designated VA healthcare facility--a hospital or clinic--you can get treated in your community by a hospital or other healthcare provider, and we will pay the fee. If you have to wait too long in line, if you have to drive too far, you will have healthcare options. That is why funding the $5.2 billion for the Choice Program is so important. This bill will also provide caregiver assistance and consolidates the VA's seven community care programs into one streamlined program and will allow veterans, as I said, to seek care when and where it makes the most sense for them. On the caregiver program, I can't help but remember when I visited Walter Reed, visiting some of our warriors injured in the line of duty in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Frequently, the spouse of a wounded warrior has to quit his or her job to care for their loved one. It is an important aspect of the continuum of care necessary for them to recover and get back on their feet. We are going to provide greater access to caregiver assistance so that spouses and family members can do exactly that. It is the right thing for us to do. Our VA MISSION bill also authorizes access to walk-in community clinics, removes bureaucratic redtape by authorizing local provider agreements, and eliminates barriers for VA healthcare professionals to practice telemedicine. In this new technological age, it makes no sense to have restrictions on the ability of people to get access to care through telemedicine, when and where appropriate. I want to conclude by saying that I appreciate Chairman Isakson, Senator Moran, and others working with the President and Acting Director Wilkie to get this done before funding runs out. I appreciate all of our colleagues who have worked on this on a bipartisan basis. Last week, the House passed the bill, so now it is our turn. What a great sign of appreciation to our veterans it will be to get this bill passed and to the President's desk and have it signed before Memorial Day. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, to my shock and surprise, 10 people were killed Friday in a little town outside of Houston known as Santa Fe, at Santa Fe High School, about 20 miles northwest of Galveston, TX. As we know now, a male student walked into an art class with a pistol and a shotgun that he got from his parents, perhaps without their knowledge. After stashing makeshift explosives elsewhere, he then engaged in a killing spree. The dead included eight students and two teachers. A brave police officer was among the 13 wounded. When I heard of the shooting, I made plans to immediately go to Santa Fe, where I met with Governor Abbott, Lieutenant Governor Patrick, Senator Cruz, and others, and we spoke to the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the FBI representatives, as well as the Santa Fe Independent School District officials to find out what happened. The families there, of course, remain in shock that something so terrible could happen in their small, tucked away little community--one that was recently shaken by Hurricane Harvey last fall and had previously seemed far removed from the violence that has touched other parts of the country. As I said last Friday, we have seen this before. Just last fall, we saw a similar story unfold in Sutherland Springs, outside of San Antonio, when a man opened fire at a Sunday church service. Then we saw it in Florida earlier this year at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland. Unfortunately, in recent years there have been plenty of examples--too many examples, actually--with too many lives lost and far too few solutions for families reeling from the aftermath. There are two things that strike me are clear, though. The first is that we need to better protect our students, secure our schools, and keep weapons out of the hands of those who are a danger to themselves and others. The second thing is to acknowledge that we haven't yet been able to do this effectively. Something is wrong, because these school shootings keep happening. It is no coincidence that these shootings mostly happen at public schools--or soft targets--and the shooters are usually male teenagers who attended these schools. These young people, I should add, are surrounded by a culture that condemns violence, on one hand, excoriating public officials for not doing more to prevent it, but celebrating violence on television, in movies, and in video games, which at least has the potential to desensitize especially vulnerable young people. Many proposals on how to address this pervasive problem focus on the guns themselves, not on the individuals who actually use them. They focus on restricting access to guns or banning specific firearm components for even law-abiding citizens. But any proposed fixes must also consider the root nature of the problem; that is, the deranged minds, the twisted rationalizations, and the tragic decisions of the people who commit these terrible acts of violence. These shooters are obviously incapable of self-regulating their own behavior. How could we possibly address that? That is part of what we need to be thinking about. A gun can kill someone only if a person--a very sick or a very bad person--pulls the trigger. So what have we done here in Congress to try to respond, as incompletely as I know we have? Well, last year, we introduced a bill called the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act, which was signed by President Obama in 2016. It is part of the answer. It provides more resources for communities and schools and mental health providers to deal with people before they become a danger to themselves or others. But there is more we can do, certainly in that space. The Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center has expanded the use of technology that can help us better utilize telemedicine to reach out to those in a mental health crisis and offer them an alternative course of treatment when they don't otherwise have access. We should consider that and other ideas in the days ahead. The parents that lost their sons and daughters at Santa Fe High School are obviously still grieving today, and we should be grieving as well, not only for the people who lost their lives but also for the state of our Nation--one that continues to watch its young people self- destruct, engaging in violence that takes the lives of brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, friends, and classmates. We have been told in recent days that grief and prayers are not enough. I agree. It is not enough to send our condolences to communities like Santa Fe. We need to look the families of the victims in the eyes and say: Here are the concrete steps we have taken and intend to take to make sure something like this never happens again. I believe we did that earlier this year on a broad, bipartisan basis by passing legislation called the Fix NICS Act. Passing that bill was important because the last time I saw a major shooting in my State, it was at Sutherland Springs, where a man who had been discharged less than honorably from the Air Force for domestic violence convictions fell through the cracks of our background check system. He was able to lie and buy a firearm, even though, under existing law, he was disqualified and prohibited from doing so. But because of the broken background check system, he was able to get away with it. Our Fix NICS Act will help to fix that broken background check system. It was widely supported by Republicans and Democrats. We had 78 cosponsors in the Senate alone, demonstrating that solutions can enjoy broad bipartisan support if they actually make sense as opposed to engaging in ideological battles. I am glad Congress worked together also to pass the STOP School Violence Act earlier this year, which I was proud to cosponsor. This legislation will help to provide our schools with the tools and resources they need to prevent violence through better equipment, planning, training, safety infrastructure, and law enforcement presence on campus. In this year's appropriations bill, we were able to allocate $75 million to start getting this initiative off the ground. Now, people wonder: Can we possibly do this? Can we succeed in making our schools a safe place for mothers and fathers to send their children and where they are confident that everything humanly possible is being done to protect them? Well, I am not suggesting that we turn them into an airport, but my colleagues will recall that post-9/11, we have hardened our airports and our Nation's air travel in such a way as to make it virtually impervious to terrorist attacks. I think given the proper attention, the creative thinking, and the proper resources, we can also come together and make our schools impervious to this sort of attack in the future. If we can do it at our Nation's airports against terrorist attacks, we can do it in our communities and in our local high schools. Finally--and thank goodness--we have seen the Justice Department prioritize firearm prosecutions with the number of defendants charged with unlawful possession increasing significantly over the past few years. This is because of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has made this a priority, and thank goodness for that. It has long been overdue. U.S. attorneys are now focused on enforcing laws that criminalize gun buyers who lie on their Federal background check. Previously, somebody could come in and lie on the background check, get caught, and nothing would ever happen to them. Now, thanks to the Attorney General and the U.S. attorneys, people are being prosecuted for lying, acting as a further deterrent on people who are felons or otherwise disqualified from legally purchasing firearms. And vehicles like Project Safe Neighborhoods, which the Senate passed unanimously last week, would fund task forces that target serious firearm offenders and get them off the streets. All of this is a good start, but the shooting in Santa Fe shows we have a long way to go because every one of these shootings seems to be a little bit different. Obviously, in Sutherland Springs, the failure seemed to be a background check system which allowed the shooter to buy a firearm, lie on the background check system, and not get caught. In places like Las Vegas, the bump stock allowed the person to essentially turn a semiautomatic rifle into an automatic weapon, which was otherwise illegal. We all learned about bump stocks. As an avid shooter and hunter myself, I had never heard about it before. Now the President has taken care of that problem. We have acted in the wake of Parkland, FL, to try to ensure we get resources to our schools so they can better protect their students and deal with other aspects of this challenge, but we need to be more methodical in figuring out the solutions, then seeing what, if any, solutions would have actually prevented a shooting, and then look to see if those same proposals would have prevented other similar events. In the case of Santa Fe, we know the shooter was somewhat socially withdrawn, but he was also a high school athlete and involved in his church. He posted troubling pictures and statements on social media, but as Governor Abbott said, he was not your typical troubled youth who people guessed one day might snap. We also know Santa Fe High School had lockdown drills recently and that police officers were stationed on campus. Both of these likely prevented the event from becoming much worse; so good for them for the lockdown drills and having police officers on campus. We should be grateful for that, even in the wake of so much violence that leaves us with so many unanswered questions. One of the two officers who rushed in to stop the shooter was John Barnes, who was, himself, shot by the gunman. He is a former Houston police officer who now works for the Santa Fe Independent School District. I am told his heart stopped twice while doctors and paramedics were trying to stem his bleeding, but he is a fighter and he held on. He is now in critical but stable condition in Galveston. We, of course, appreciate him and all other first responders and the other officers who courageously confronted the shooter and saved other lives. We wish Officer Barnes and his entire family the best as he fully recovers from his injury. Another hero who has emerged, from accounts of the shooting, is Christopher Stone, a 17-year-old junior who, once the shooting started, blocked the classroom door, protecting his fellow students from the gunman. Tragically, when the gunman shot through the door, Christopher Stone was hit, and he did not survive, but we will remember him and all the other lives which were lost this week as we pledge to do better, to work harder, to work together, and to find new ways to protect our schools and our children from harm. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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