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 Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on armed services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 12, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing. committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 12, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Semi-Annual Report to Congress.'' committee on commerce, science, and transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 12, 2018, at 9:45 a.m. to conduct a hearing. committee on finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 12, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The 2018 Tax Filing Season and Future IRS Challenges.'' committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 12, 2018, at 10:15 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Mike Pompeo, of Kansas, to be Secretary of State. committee on the judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 12, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on S. 994 and the following nominations: John B. Nalbandian, of Kentucky, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, Kari A. Dooley, to be United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, Dominic W. Lanza, to be United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, Jill Aiko Otake, to be United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, Michael Y. Scudder, of Illinois, and Amy J. St. Eve, of Illinois, both to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, Charles J. Williams, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, and Joseph H. Hunt, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Attorney General, Timothy A. Garrison, to be United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, Kenji M. Price, to be United States Attorney for the District of Hawaii, John Cary Bittick, to be United States Marshal for the Middle District of Georgia, David L. Lyons, to be United States Marshal for the Southern District of Georgia, and Rodney D. Ostermiller, to be United States Marshal for the District of Montana, all of the Department of Justice. select committee on intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 21, 2018, at 2 p.m. to conduct a closed hearing. subcommittee on regulatory affairs and federal management The Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 12, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reviewing the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I preface my remarks today about China with a recent article from The Economist, dated March 1, 2018, which, I think, does a very good job of crystallizing what the hopes and aspirations that we in the West had for China and what the reality has turned out to be. It points out that in March 2000, Bill Clinton divided the American opinion on China into two camps. The first, he said, was of the optimists, and the second was of the hawks and the pessimists. The optimists, as it describes it, have an eye on the future and can see China becoming the next great capitalist tiger with the biggest market in the world. That was the optimistic view. The Economist writes that the hawks and pessimists, who were stuck in the past, saw China as stubbornly remaining as the world's last, great Communist dragon and a threat to stability in Asia. As this article points out, it was not an either/or. It called it a both/and. It concludes that the China of Xi Jingping is a great mercantilist dragon that is under strict Communist Party control and that it is using the power of its vast markets to cow and co-opt capitalist rivals to bend and break the rules-based order and to push America to the periphery of the Asia-Pacific region. It calls this one of the starkest reversals in modern geopolitics. Indeed, the administration's national security strategy that President Trump rolled out just a couple of months ago states that China challenges American power, influence, and interests. It points out again that the hopes and aspirations of the optimists appear to have been dashed. Instead, we have one of the starkest reversals in modern geopolitics. This leads me to the subject I want to at least start talking about because it does relate to China. Today, in the Subcommittee on International Trade, within the Senate Finance Committee, which I happen to chair, we are convening a hearing on trade issues and China. The core issue my colleagues and I will examine involves challenges to U.S. businesses, manufacturers, and service providers who are trying to get access to the Chinese market--a market that represents the second largest economy in the world. China, of course, has almost unfettered access to the United States. There are important protections in place, like the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which does look at some of those investments to make sure our national security interests are not compromised. By and large, China has open access to the United States and the U.S. market. China is the United States' largest merchandise trading partner and the third largest export market for U.S. goods abroad. Although the legitimate flow of goods and services between the United States and China has increased over the years and is, in many respects, a positive thing, statistics alone do not capture the whole story, hence the preface that I gave about The Economist's view of what has changed in China. Unfortunately, while Chinese companies largely enjoy open access to U.S. markets and an economy that is receptive to foreign investment, U.S. companies are not afforded reciprocity in this regard. In his State of the Union Message, the President made that point, which is that in our trading relationships, we expect reciprocity--in other words, to treat our trading partners the same way they treat us-- hopefully, to everybody's advantage. U.S. companies that seek to do business in China often encounter--I would say always encounter--a protectionist system, one that employs predatory tactics and promotes domestic industries over foreign competitors, many of which receive State subsidies. In many cases, China has used trade as a weapon and coerced U.S. companies to enter into joint ventures or other business arrangements that require a company to hand over its key technology and know-how--the so-called secret sauce of its business--in order to gain market access. This practice has already begun to erode America's technological advantage and undermine our defense industrial base, which is something that should concern all of us and is the subject of a revision of the Committee on Foreign Investment of the United States, CFIUS, statute that is going to be coming out of the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee. It will be an updating of the CFIUS process to meet the challenges of today. Of course, under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the Trump administration is currently considering potential investment restrictions to address the harm that has resulted from China's effort to acquire sensitive technologies through investments. I look forward to working with the President and others to ensure that the proper steps are taken, but the real issues are clear, and we will be considering them in more detail at the hearing this afternoon on China's restrictive market. Even though multiple administrations have attempted to engage Chinese leaders on their trade practices, the high-level diplomatic talks have generally yielded little progress and have often resulted in commitments with zero follow-up action. Discussions may continue in the future, but China's market access reforms are still too slow, and real barriers exist. Reciprocal treatment for U.S. companies should not be too much to ask. Indeed, it is the minimum we should insist upon. It is my hope that today's hearing will paint a clear picture of the problems that persist with access to Chinese markets and that significant reforms will follow.

Mr. CORNYN

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).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today we have a joint Commerce and Judiciary Committee hearing on online privacy and the abuse of data obtained by social media platforms. Ordinarily, I wouldn't come to the Senate floor to talk about an individual legislative hearing, but this is no run-of-the-mill event. The CEO of Facebook will be testifying, and I believe his company and other parties have some important explaining to do. One question is what Facebook's priorities are and whether they are what they should be. Facebook, of course, is a publicly traded company, and it has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders that it shares in common with every other shareholder-owned enterprise. Its business model is unique. It collects information on billions of people and uses that data to help drive its profits. One wonders whether, and at what point, that profit motive has come to be at odds with protecting the privacy of individual users. To me, that is one of the fundamental questions Mr. Zuckerberg is going to have to answer today. From testimony released yesterday, we know Facebook will admit it made mistakes; that it didn't take a broad enough view of its responsibility and prevent its tools from being used in ways that it says it did not intend. That act of contrition is one we all welcome, of course, but it will not matter much without additional action, some of which might be even foundational to Facebook's entire business model. Those changes, we are told, can take some time. Meanwhile, Americans will continue to wonder about their privacy, about who is acquiring data about their political opinions, their personal taste, and their preferences without their informed consent. How much have any of us read of the terms of service for the social media platforms that we use? They are written by lawyers for legal purposes, which is basically to prevent any lawsuits from being successfully filed against the company. Yet, in terms of informed consent, which is what we ought to be focused on here, how much do consumers really understand about how the data is used that they turn over to these social media platforms? Mr. Zuckerberg has an opportunity today to explain whether consumers are really being protected in any meaningful way. It is good that Facebook has, in recent months, shut down accounts that have had links to the Russian Government--accounts that were used to meddle in our last election. That is surely one actor we know who has used Facebook in improper ways, but it never should have reached that point. The company should have spotted this attempt of foreign influence much earlier and contained its spread. In our moving forward, now is the time to demand a comprehensive accounting of internal monitoring efforts as well as the full extent of the infiltration and manipulation of that and other social media platforms in the past, not just by Russia but by other foreign actors, including rogue actors. In addition to its response to the Russia allegations, Facebook, we have been told, has limited which online apps can literally vacuum up information from users' profiles. Once again, this announcement only tells us so much. We need to understand which apps are still being allowed to mine that data and under what conditions. We have all heard about one egregious case of this happening--a political consulting firm, using Facebook, that improperly accessed the private data of some 87 million users. This data was used to assemble a psychological profile to assess how people might respond to political advertising and how they might vote in an election. When people access Facebook to trade pictures with families and friends or to communicate with family and talk about their most recent vacations, I doubt they realize that data could be acquired by a third party, like Cambridge Analytica, and that it can not only literally use that information but all of the personal data of their friends and relatives in order to target political messaging for its use in an election. Facebook has historically been a platform for all ideas, as they say, but now the company realizes that because of its business model, it has more responsibilities. It is not just a neutral platform. It must defend against false information, foreign government subterfuge, and other destructive conduct, such as child pornography and human trafficking. We know, as a result of the most recent legislation we passed relative to human trafficking, that we have actually expanded the responsibilities of social media platforms in the human trafficking arena because of the threat it poses to so many innocent people. The basic questions are whether Facebook is responsible for misinformation in its use of its platform, for outright falsehoods, or attempts by foreign governments to meddle in our elections by sowing discord and disinformation. There are also some important questions about whether Facebook is inconsistently using the data that it collects in a way that obviously benefits itself financially but is not sharing it on an equal basis with law enforcement or intelligence when the intelligence community needs that information to solve crimes or to keep the country safe. A lot of ideas have been tossed around about how to respond to these difficult questions. Perhaps we should treat social media platforms as information fiduciaries and impose legal obligations on them, as we do with lawyers and doctors, who are privy to some of our most personal, private information. To me, one of the most important questions is who owns that data that we share on social media platforms and whether the data that is shared is shared with one's fully informed consent so that consumers are protected against consequences they had no way of anticipating and that are damaging to their personal privacy. Other ideas involve increased transparency, partnering with the Federal Trade Commission, or passing new data privacy laws. They involve giving consumers more control and requiring companies to disclose in plain English and in nontechnical ways what information they collect before users are presumed to have given their consent. I look forward to exploring these and other related ideas at the hearing later today. Facebook and other social media platforms need to come clean with the American people. An apology, while necessary and welcome, is not enough. These companies must back up their words with actions that better safeguard the American consumer and their right to privacy. Technology can be a good thing, but it can also be abused in ways that we need to reckon with. This afternoon's hearing will be the beginning of those efforts in a very substantial and comprehensive way. Mr. President, on a separate matter, we have a lot on our plate here in the Senate apart from conducting the hearing that I just mentioned. One of our items on our ``to do'' list is to continue to confirm the President's nominees, who have faced an unprecedented level of obstruction from the minority. The majority leader, Senator McConnell, has been forced to file cloture--a formal piece of paper--on six important nominees, many of whom will be confirmed with strong bipartisan support, but because our colleagues on the other side refuse to consent to the expedited consideration of these noncontroversial nominees, we will have to literally burn up a week of the Senate's time during which we could be doing other important work.

Mr. CORNYN

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).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: 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. Madam President, I rise to mention one piece of legislative business and then will pay tribute to the senior Senator from Mississippi, Senator Thad Cochran. Last night, the Appropriations Committee, which Senator Cochran chairs, released the 2018 Omnibus appropriations bill. It includes a proposal that I feel very strongly about, and I am grateful to him and all of our colleagues for their support. I particularly want to acknowledge the advocacy of the majority leader, Mitch McConnell, to make sure this provision is included in the omnibus bill. The House will soon vote on the omnibus, and then I hope we can quickly follow suit here in the Senate. The provision I am referring to is, in shorthand, called Fix NICS. NICS, of course, is the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. I think it is a reasoned and reasonable response to the shootings that have, appallingly, occurred in our schools, our churches, and in our public spaces. Just this last week, a gunman opened fire at a high school in Maryland, not far from here, and, of course, shootings have occurred in Florida, Texas, Nevada, Charleston, SC, and elsewhere. Our constituents are frustrated, frightened, and fed up. They want us to do something. More importantly than that, they want us to do something that will be effective and save lives. I am happy to say the Fix NICS bill fits that description. People who haven't been active on this issue now are raising their voices and demanding that they be heard. Students are worried, understandably, and parents of students are worried. They simply don't want what happened in Parkland, FL, to occur to them. We need to listen to all of these voices, including to these students, who obviously will shape our Nation's future. They don't want to go to school and wonder whether bullets will rain down their hallways or whether their friends might be the next victims. In a recent interview, one teenager said something that was trite but true. She said: ``Guns are not the problem. The people are the problem.'' I happen to agree with that. One question about school shooters is, How did they get to the point at which they thought that shooting up public places was what they really wanted to do? How did they justify it in their own minds, as warped as that might be? Also, what is it about our culture, their home environments, or their mental states that allows them to rationalize violence that does such tremendous harm? How does slaughter--because that is what it really is--become justified in their warped perspectives? I admit that those are tough questions to answer, and they are tough to even ponder, but we still can and have to do what is possible to protect our schools, our churches, parents, teachers, and our children. Recently, 13 families from Parkland, FL, wrote in support of this particular legislation--legislation that would improve school safety, that has been sponsored by our colleague, the senior Senator from Utah. Senator Hatch's bill would fund the creation of and provide training for threat assessment teams--in other words, to evaluate beforehand where people are vulnerable. It includes security measures and anonymous reporting systems. This bill is widely supported and shows that even on a divisive issue, there is plenty of room for common ground. In that same letter, the 13 Parkland families said they supported Senator Hatch's school safety measures. They also expressed support for the Fix NICS bill, which they said is desperately needed to improve compliance with firearms purchasing background check systems. A recent Gallup Poll showed that the public broadly supports proposals like Fix NICS. More than 9 in 10 see the importance of background checks. Over the last few weeks, there has been a true groundswell of support for this bill that I and the junior Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy, cosponsored. The supporters now include not only victims' rights advocates, gun violence prevention groups, and prosecutors, but also the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the Major County Sheriffs of America, as well as other law enforcement groups. All of these organizations have endorsed Fix NICS and signed a letter that asks that the majority and minority leaders put this measure to a vote. Now, in its having been included in the Omnibus appropriations bill, we will finally have a chance to do that--first in the House and then in the Senate. These organizations and the general public agree that fixing our background check system should be a national priority and that we should better ensure that convicted criminals with past histories of violence and mental illness do not purchase or possess firearms, as the law currently in effect provides. They see merit in trying to fix our system that currently has allowed these same people to slip through the cracks and purchase firearms in order to kill innocent people, like the 26 who were gunned down inside the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, TX, just outside of San Antonio. Some have said that Fix NICS doesn't go far enough, that it is a modest measure. I have to question that sort of description. Is it really a modest measure if it will, in fact, save lives? I think not. It is a necessary measure and one that brings people together across the political spectrum, Republicans and Democrats alike. Even if Fix NICS were to save just one life, that would be reason enough to enact it, but I think that is unlikely. I think it will save many lives once it is enacted into law and signed by the President. We have 78 cosponsors of this legislation. I can't think of another piece of legislation that has enjoyed such broad bipartisan support, including by the majority leader and the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer. In today's hyperpolarized environment, that kind of support speaks for itself. I look forward to its passing in the House as part of the funding bill, and I hope the Senate will do the same before the end of the week. Tribute to Thad Cochran Madam President, I close by saying a few words about our friend and trusted colleague, the senior Senator from Mississippi, Thad Cochran, who has announced his retirement from the Senate. I know the real tributes are about to kick off in a minute when the majority leader comes out, but since I am up here, I thought I would take the opportunity to say a few words. Senator Cochran has represented the State of Mississippi in the U.S. Senate since 1978. He is one of the longest serving Members of Congress in the history of the United States. His career and his life speak for themselves. He is the son of a school principal and math teacher. Not surprisingly, he was a gifted high school athlete. He is a piano player and a former college yell leader. Yes, even like me, he is a recovering lawyer, but we will not hold that against him. Before he joined Congress, he served in the U.S. Navy because he loves this country and the opportunities it has afforded him and his family. He is a man with a strong sense of duty and gratitude for the opportunities he has been given in life. After ROTC at the University of Mississippi, he received orders to join the USS Macon, and after that he joined the staff of the Navy commandant in New Orleans. Later, he ran for public office. He first served in the House of Representatives. He then, of course, came here to the Senate, where he quickly established himself as a cordial but formidable presence. Before I came to the Senate, Senator Cochran was chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. He has chaired the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee too. Most recently, he has alternated between serving as ranking member and chairman of the all-powerful Appropriations Committee. Throughout his 45 years in Congress, he has participated in crafting and enacting historic legislation, but his main focus has always been on the people of Mississippi. His highest priority has always been on the men and women he was elected to represent in places like Jackson, Gulfport, Greenville, Starkville, and Hattiesburg. One example is when he fought so hard for recovery funding after Hurricane Katrina had destroyed large swaths of the southern part of Mississippi. Many people forget that that awful storm was much bigger than New Orleans'. Mississippi was hit almost equally as hard, and Senator Cochran made sure his State got the help it needed to get back on its feet. His storied career is one of service and collegiality even amidst the fractious debates. He treats friends and political adversaries with respect. He listens to what people have to say. We need more people like that in public life. The majority leader has called him the ``quiet persuader,'' one who knows ``there's a big difference between making a fuss and making a difference.'' Judge E. Grady Jolly, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, who has known Senator Cochran as long as anyone, said that back home, he is known for his ``modesty and his retiring nature''--not attributes you would normally associate with somebody in politics, but he is a class act. He is also known for the consistent attention he has paid to the Mississippi Delta--one of the poorest regions in the Nation's poorest State. The judge calls Senator Cochran the ``ultimate model of sincerity,'' one who ``never engages in ad hominem or personal attacks'' and always ``keeps a sense of humor about himself.'' My office spoke to one Mississippi resident this week because we wanted to learn a little bit more about what Senator Cochran has meant to her. That woman, who had met Senator Cochran only a handful of times, said she had always respected and admired Senator Cochran's statesmanship and the dignity with which he represented Mississippi. Her comments are a good note to end on--statesmanship and dignity. Those traits never go out of style. I know I speak for my other colleagues--and they will speak for themselves--when we all say thank you to Thad Cochran for setting a higher standard for the Members of this body. The U.S. Senate will not be the same without him.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4851, which was received from the House.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Young amendment at the desk be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator form North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator form Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) would have voted ``nay''.

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

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