John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) would have voted ``yea.''

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 come before this body a second day in a row to talk about an event that the Senator from Connecticut has been referring to that has shocked all of us. It has rattled us to the very core and shocked the conscience of the entire Nation. I didn't get a chance to hear everything he said about this today, but I was encouraged to hear him make comments about fixing the background check system, which I think failed us terribly here, and it failed, of course, the 26 people who lost their lives and the 20 more who were injured in this terrible shooting in Sutherland Springs, TX, during a Sunday morning church service at First Baptist Church. Of course, at times like these, we need to respect the right and the need of people to mourn and to grieve their loss and to express our solidarity with those families who were torn apart. One woman who has lived in Sutherland Springs for nearly 70 years described the community as a place where ``everybody knew everybody.'' She said that before Sunday, most people didn't even keep their doors locked because the town never experienced any significant crime. Well, now that has changed. Sutherland Springs has suffered at the hands of a man whom initial reports have described as having a known history of violence, a man whose victims included his own grandmother-in-law as well as the visiting pastor of the church. No community finds it easy to deal with unexpected heartbreaking losses like this, but the fact that this crime involved so many tightly knit friends and neighbors and occurred in a house of worship on a Sunday morning and harmed so many innocent children makes the task much harder. As each new detail emerges from what is still an ongoing investigation, we need to study the whole puzzle and ask ourselves how this happened, why so many lives were lost, and what, if anything, could have been done to prevent it. We know, for example, that the gunman was court-martialed by the Air Force and convicted of seriousness domestic abuse, fracturing the skull of his own son. Under the relevant Federal law, the Gun Control Act of 1968, this should have prohibited him from ever purchasing a gun in the first place, but we know it didn't in this instance. This critically important information from the suspect's criminal history was not uploaded into the relevant background check databases even though a Federal law clearly requires that it be done. Finally and most troublingly, we know what happened next: Mr. Kelley unlawfully purchased four firearms after passing Federal background checks that did not turn up his Air Force convictions. Of course, the shooter lied on his paperwork. He was asked about these convictions-- that is part of the background check system--but because there was no record of it, he was able to lie his way into getting these firearms. This is very clearly a problem, and the Air Force has now admitted that Kelley's convictions should have barred him from ever purchasing or possessing firearms. What appears to have happened is that the records of the convictions were not uploaded into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. They are required to be uploaded by Federal law already. There are still some questions to sift through, but I plan to introduce legislation--and I would be happy to work with my colleague from Connecticut--to ensure that all Federal Departments and Agencies, including the Department of Defense, upload the required conviction records into the national database. This legislation will also encourage, to the greatest extent possible under the Constitution, State and local governments to do the same. We can make the Federal Agencies do it. We can only request that the States do it, as the Senator from Connecticut pointed out earlier, and their record of compliance is lousy. It is lousy. Justice Department records indicate that some Federal Agencies and State governments are failing to comply with the Federal law. According to the Department of Justice, the number of these records that are actually uploaded is staggeringly low. That is unacceptable, and it must change. What is important to note, though, is that when the dust settles, the appropriate answers won't necessarily be the easy ones. The fact remains that under existing law, this atrocity should have been prevented. This gunman should not have been allowed to purchase firearms and should have been arrested when he tried to do so. We need to better understand why our existing laws didn't work in this instance, and that is what my proposed legislation will do. After analyzing the problem, we will try to ensure that everyone is complying with the law. In 2015, I introduced legislation called the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act that addressed a related issue: the failure of State and local authorities to upload valuable mental health records into the NICS background check database. I hope this demonstrates my willingness to work together with anybody who is willing to meet these problems head-on. Right now, we need time and clarity. We need to know and continue to study the facts. Then, as we have already started to do, we need to consider all existing laws and regulations, both State and Federal, in light of this new information. Mr. President, I know we are coming up on a deadline. I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we wait for additional details, I want to say a few more words about the strong community of Sutherland Springs, one just 35 miles from my hometown of San Antonio, TX, where I grew up. First Baptist Church, where the shooting occurred, has served as a mainstay in the town since 1926. It is the site of church services every Sunday, weddings, social gatherings, and even some funerals. We hope the First Baptist Church can bounce back from this tragedy, and I am confident they can because faith, hope, and love can never be extinguished no matter the depravity, the evil that tries. We are not sure what will happen to the building or the congregation itself, but no matter what, the unique spirit of this community will no doubt endure. I am hopeful that the town of Sutherland Springs will come back too. If people like Stephen Willeford are any indication, it will. Stephen, of course, is the plumber who managed to hit the gunman through a gap in his body armor. He was joined by Johnnie Langendorff. In a truck, the two chased the gunman at high speeds for 11 miles into neighboring Guadalupe County. What these two men displayed is that in the worst circumstances, we won't let evil have its way. We won't let sick individuals like this shooter escape the consequences of their crimes. Strangers will come together and act quickly and courageously to defend the communities they love and in which they live. Today I join Governor Abbott, my colleagues--Senator Cruz and Representative Henry Cuellar, in whose House district this occurred-- and so many other Texans in once again pledging my support to the people of Sutherland Springs. I send my thoughts and prayers to those who lost parents, children, friends, and relatives in this unbelievable act of evil. The biggest danger, though, is that we become numb and we just simply move on to other matters. We can't let that happen. As Sherry Pomeroy, the wife of the pastor at First Baptist, said yesterday, ``Please don't forget Sutherland Springs.'' And when we hear people ask us to do something about terrible tragedies like this, let's do what we can, working together in a bipartisan way, to fix the holes in what is already the law, which says that people like this shooter should never have gotten their hands on a firearm in the first place. But either through human error or some failure of the background check system, he was able to do so. We need to fix that, and hopefully, in doing so, we can bring some small sense of justice to the people who lost so much last Sunday in Sutherland Springs, TX. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today we join the stunned community of Sutherland Springs, TX--a small town near San Antonio--in mourning the loss of too many innocent lives. One innocent life is too many. I listened to the impassioned comments of our colleague from New York asking us to do something, but I actually think it is important we understand exactly what did happen, and once the fog of this terrible tragic event lifts, after the law enforcement agencies can do the appropriate investigation, then I think it is appropriate for us to ask: What can we do, consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States--what can we do to make something like this less likely? I wish I was optimistic there was some magic wand we could wave and that we could prevent terrible tragedies like this, but in a free and open society, unfortunately, we don't have that magic wand. On the other hand, we have arrived at a consensus, I think, in this country, that background checks, for example, are appropriate for people suffering from mental illness, people who committed previous felonies. Those people are banned from possessing or purchasing firearms, and there is a consensus that they should be banned. There are some early reports--and, again, the fog of this terrible tragedy has not yet lifted. We need clarity in order to know what did and did not happen and where we might be able to act to make a difference. There is some indication by some news reports that this individual had committed domestic violence and had been convicted of that by a court-martial. That, too, would likely have been a disqualifying factor in his ability to possess or purchase firearms. So we need to know exactly what the facts are. I appreciate the passion of our colleague from New York. We are all stunned by what happened, but I think being rational people, we ought to want to know exactly what the facts are before we decide what the best course of action might be. It may be that, like we saw a few years back at Virginia Tech, an individual who had previously been adjudicated mentally ill, that determination, that judgment was not entered into the National Instant Background Checks System run by the FBI, and because it wasn't--because of a failure of communication between the State and Federal authorities--he was able to purchase a firearm when he was legally disqualified from being able to do so. So those are the sorts of things I think we could work together on. I know, for example, after the terrible shooting in Las Vegas, I was shocked, like so many others were, that somebody could essentially bypass the prohibition against making a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic weapon by the use of the so-called bump stock. As somebody who enjoys the outdoors and is a hunter and enjoys recreational shooting, I can tell you I know of no sportsman, no hunter, who uses a bump stock. It seems to me the sole purpose of this is to bypass the prohibition about turning semiautomatic weapons into automatic weapons. That is something I hope the Senate Judiciary Committee will continue to look into and determine whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms ought to be extended the authority to regulate the so-called bump stocks. Back when President Obama was President of the United States, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms said they did not believe they had the authority, but several of us have written to them and asked them to clarify for us just where they think they do have authority and where they feel they need additional authority so we can work with them, hopefully, to prevent terrible tragedies like that from occurring in the future. Yesterday we all received the news that a gunman opened fire on parishioners at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, TX, killing at least 26 people during the Sunday morning church service. I can't imagine a more vulnerable time. People were sitting in the pews with their heads bowed and their eyes closed and then were exposed to this madman unleashing death in that house of worship. The victims included young children and a pregnant woman, among others. All 26 of them are now gone, aged 18 months to 72 years old. This small community and an entire Nation must now bind its wounds as we mourn the dead and meet the face of evil with moral clarity and a newfound determination to stem the violence that continues to plague the United States of the America. We saw in New York that somebody used a vehicle--a car--to mow down people and to kill people as an act of terrorism. We are vulnerable in so many ways because we are an open society. Unfortunately, these sorts of tragedies seem to come back to us time and again, and we in Texas are not immune. We remember the knife attack at the University of Texas in Austin earlier this year. We remember the shooting of police officers in downtown Dallas last year, where five police officers perished, and at Fort Hood in 2009. Each of these events has been shocking, inexplicable, and, certainly, reprehensible. This tragedy may be the worst of all. That this event occurred in a house of worship makes it all the more grotesque and despicable. Hymns of praise were silenced, and those led to cries for help. The shooting in Sutherland Springs has been called the deadliest mass shooting in Texas history. It is perhaps better understood by the words of one man whose mother and father were both killed yesterday. He was sitting on the curb, outside the emergency room, at Connally Memorial Medical Center in Floresville, a town nearby. Shaken to the core, he called the events of yesterday ``unimaginable.'' It is impossible to comprehend what it must have felt like to wake up this morning in Sutherland Springs--a small, tight-knit, rural community that is roughly 35 miles southeast of San Antonio--with so many neighbors lost and the sound of yesterday's gunfire and sirens still ringing in the air. One of the people who lost her life was Crystal Holcombe, who died with her unborn child and several relatives. Another was Annabelle Pomeroy, a shy 14-year-old girl, whose uncle describes her as an ``angel in the flesh.'' We know, thankfully, that two Good Samaritans turned on and pursued the shooter and may have prevented this nightmare from lasting even longer. We are grateful for the heroism and the quick decisive action of these two men. We know that about 20 injured remain in hospitals, including a 5-year-old, Ryland Ward, who was shot multiple times. Yesterday I spoke with Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Wilson County Sheriff Joe Tackitt, Jr., and offered not only my condolences but my unequivocal and complete support. Sheriff Tackitt said that the bloody scene inside First Baptist was horrific, but that the response to the tragedy was instantaneous. First responders from the surrounding area, as well as State and Federal officials, inundated Sutherland Springs with logistical resources and personnel, offering their love and compassion, as well--a proud display of what I often see, which is an attitude that being a Texan doesn't describe just where you are from. It describes who your family is. Today I join the sheriff, as well as Governor Abbott, and my friend Representative Henry Cuellar, in whose congressional district this tragedy occurred, my colleague in the Senate, Senator Cruz, and so many other Texans in asking God for healing and for understanding. We know the investigation into exactly what happened and why is ongoing, and it is important that we allow this investigation to be completed so we can know what happened and exactly what we might be able to do to prevent tragedies like this from occurring in the future. I hope that Texans who call Sutherland Springs and First Baptist Church home will soon have some answers. I send my thoughts and prayers to those who lost parents, children, friends, and relatives in this outrageous and inhuman act. I hope each of us will pledge to be a light in the darkness. To the families whose lives are forever changed by this atrocity, let us provide a strong shoulder of support. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week we have been talking about some sterling nominees for our Nation's circuit courts of appeals. These are our intermediate appellate courts in the country, one step above the trial courts where cases are tried and one step below the Supreme Court of the United States. What most people don't realize is that the Supreme Court only decides roughly 80 cases a year. In other words, there is no guarantee that if your case is tried in the trial court, it will go beyond the circuit court of appeals. So in many instances, our circuit courts are the ``supreme court,'' or the court of last resort. These sterling nominees that the President has nominated include Professor Amy Barrett, who yesterday was confirmed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals by a bipartisan vote of 55 to 43. For some reason, our friends across the aisle have decided it is to their advantage to inexplicably drag out the clock against a really accomplished scholar--and to boot, a mother of seven--but, of course, to no avail. What is worse is our colleagues across the aisle have seemed to have forgotten some of their own priorities when it comes to judges. For example, the senior Senator from Minnesota has said in the past: ``It is time to get women on the bench.'' Well, we just did that yesterday, and we are going to do it again. ``They should get an up-or-down vote . . . that is what women deserve.'' I would say that is what the President's nominees--whether they be women or men--deserve, but, unfortunately, that hasn't always been the case. There is still time, however, for our Democratic colleagues to honor their previous statements and to put more women on the circuit courts without needlessly stringing them along with unnecessary delays. Joan Larsen was the first. She was confirmed earlier today. She fulfills the desire of the senior Senator from Vermont to ``confirm women practicing at the pinnacle of the legal profession.'' That is certainly where Joan Larsen works. She has been a justice on the Michigan Supreme Court and was nominated to the Sixth Circuit, which handles Federal appeals from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. Justice Larsen graduated first in her class from Northwestern University's law school. She then clerked for the prestigious DC Circuit Court of Appeals, right here in Washington, DC. She then went on to serve as a law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court. Since then, she has worked in public service at the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice during the George W. Bush administration and has taught at the University of Michigan Law School. Both of our Democratic colleagues from Michigan have returned their blue slips, which is the piece of paper which says they are OK with the nomination going forward, signaling their approval. Given her credentials, my question would be, How could they not? Ms. Larsen will make an excellent judge. She already has been, but she will make an excellent addition to the circuit court of appeals, and I am glad we have now confirmed her. Another nominee is on the way. Justice Allison Eid of the Colorado Supreme Court has been nominated to the Tenth Circuit post formerly held by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was recently confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Tenth Circuit sits in Denver and includes Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. As in the case of Professor Barrett and Justice Larsen, Allison Eid is exceptional in every respect. She attended Stanford University and the University of Chicago Law School, where she was elected to the Order of the Coif and graduated with high honors. She clerked for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans and then went on to clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas on the U.S. Supreme Court. As with Justice Larsen, Justice Eid has received the blue slips from both of her home State Senators, which means they are willing to let this confirmation go forward. So I look forward to her quick confirmation. Finally, the fourth judge who will be confirmed this week is professor Stephanos Bibas, who teaches at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. He has been nominated for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Stephanos Bibas was educated at Columbia, Oxford, and Yale Law School. He, likewise, clerked for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and then went on to clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court. He has worked both in private practice and as a prosecutor. Now he has distinguished himself as an academic, teaching and publishing in the realm of criminal law and procedure. In their ringing endorsement of his nomination, a diverse group of more than 100 law professors noted Professor Bibas's ``fair-mindedness, conscientiousness, and personal integrity.'' Those are the sort of qualities we should all want in a circuit court judge. We are going to confirm Stephanos Bibas and the other nominees I mentioned, no matter how long it takes, this week. The majority leader has put our friends across the aisle on notice, and there is nothing they can do to stop those confirmation votes before we call it a week. Once again, the administration has demonstrated its skill at picking bright nominees for the right reasons. This week's nominees will read the law faithfully. They will honestly interpret its text, and they will apply it to cases with a sense of humility no matter what their preferred outcome might be. I appreciate President Trump, Leader McConnell, and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, for the hard work in bringing these nominees to the floor. Now let's get them on the Federal bench.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, last night we held a cloture vote on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, who has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Thanks to a unanimous consent request by the majority leader just moments ago, we will be voting on that nomination at around 4 p.m. That appeals court covers cases from Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. By all accounts, Professor Barrett is a devoted wife and the mother of seven children. She is also an exemplary scholar whose research focuses on Federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation. By all accounts, she is a consummate professional, a beloved teacher, a gifted writer, and a generous person. There is no doubt in my mind she would make an excellent addition to one of our Nation's highest courts. We know, based on what we have observed in the Senate since President Trump was sworn in on January 20--and some of the comments made by the distinguished former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee from Utah, Senator Hatch--we know that our Democratic colleagues are deliberately slow-walking judicial and other nominations, but it makes absolutely no sense to slow-walk the nomination of Professor Barrett. They should remember some of their own previous statements. For example, the senior Senator from Vermont said in 2013: ``We need more women in our Federal courts,'' emphasizing that ``women are grossly underrepresented'' there. Well, Professor Barrett would help solve what the Senator from Vermont claimed he saw as a problem. The junior Senator from Washington that same year said that having more females on the court is ``incredibly important.'' I agree. That is all the more reason for this body to expedite Professor Barrett's confirmation instead of dragging our heels because, as I said yesterday, thanks to the former Democratic majority leader, Harry Reid, the Democratic's delay tactics will not change the outcome. In the Judiciary Committee, some Democrats attempted to argue against Professor Barrett's nomination because of the Law Review article she coauthored almost 20 years ago. I don't have time to discuss the article in depth, but suffice it to say that Professor Barrett has been attacked for, in effect, professing her Catholic faith. Her article, however, makes clear that any line of criticism that she would somehow subjugate the rule of law and the Constitution to her religious views is baseless. That same Law Review article said: ``Judges cannot--nor should they try to--align our legal system with the Church's moral teaching whenever the two diverge.'' In other words, Professor Barrett is a strong proponent of upholding the rule of law over privately held desires for what it should say, whether they are based on one's religious convictions or some other reason. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist once said that no judicial nominee is a tabula rasa--a blank slate. That is also true of Ms. Barrett. She is a person of faith who doesn't hide it, and she certainly need not apologize for it either, nor is it a disqualification for her serving as a judge on the circuit court of appeals. The article she coauthored 20 years ago stated that judges should not shy away from honoring and upholding core tenets of their religious faith and recusing or disqualifying themselves when--in very rare cases--judicial decision making may constitute cooperation with evil. In other words, if there were a conflict between her religious beliefs and the law in a way that she could not reconcile, clearly she would make that choice, in an individual and rare case, by recusing herself from deciding that case rather than imposing her religious views or other deeply held personal views in place of the Constitution and the law. That is commendable. It is not controversial--or it shouldn't be. To attempt to faithfully honor both the law and one's deeply held moral convictions is what we all do every day. It is not an either/or situation. Some liberal interest groups have engaged in smear tactics against Professor Barrett. They are trying to discredit her by making spurious claims about organizations that she has given presentations to and by distorting the text of the very article I just mentioned. We all remember, for example, questions during the Judiciary Committee hearing about ``orthodox Catholics.'' One of my colleagues admitted to having an ``uncomfortable feeling'' about the nominee and stated with mild disdain that ``the dogma lives loudly within'' Professor Barrett-- whatever that means. This sort of backhanded way of painting the professor as somehow radical or out of the mainstream, insinuating that because her moral views may be unfashionable in some of the circles in which some of the Senators operate--the idea that they are somehow disqualifying should be completely out of bounds in the United States of America because our Constitution prohibits religious tests for public service. In the strongest of terms, I reject this line of questioning or the insinuation that follows from it. If we tolerate this sort of commentary and these religious tests, I fear that even worse, more openly hostile religious discrimination will result down the road. We should not start down this path. I join my colleague, the senior Senator from Utah, who questioned quite legitimately whether certain of our colleagues were beginning to impose an inappropriate, unconstitutional, and highly disconcerting religious litmus test for public office. Of course, there should never be such a test, not in the United States of America under this Constitution. In Professor Barrett's case, she passes with flying colors the only tests that are appropriate. Let's talk for a moment about her impeccable credentials, which show not only that she is highly intelligent but also that she is widely respected by a diverse array of students, scholars, and practitioners. She received her undergraduate degree magna cum laude from Rhodes College and her law degree summa cum laude from the University of Notre Dame, where she finished first in her law school class. She has been twice selected as the Distinguished Professor of the Year at Notre Dame, where she has taught since the year 2002. It is clear that her students love her. They seek out her classes and are inspired by her formidable presence and her piercing analysis. All of her fellow faculty members have endorsed her. Every full-time member of the Notre Dame law faculty has supported her nomination. As on any law school faculty, that presumably includes scholars who self-identify as liberal. In a separate letter, 70 law professors from across the country, representing a broad range of political perspectives and areas of expertise, called the professor's qualifications ``first-rate.'' They strongly urged her confirmation by the Senate and explained that Ms. Barrett ``enjoys wide respect for her careful work, her fair-minded disposition, and her personal integrity.'' That is exactly the type of person we need on the Federal bench. Finally, Professor Barrett's legal experience is not just as an academic; she clerked for two highly respected judges--Judge Laurence Silberman of the DC Circuit and the late Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court. She followed those clerkships by practicing appellate law at the prestigious Houston-based law firm of Baker Botts. These and other qualifications show that Professor Barrett would serve the cause of justice skillfully and impartially. I will close by saying to my colleagues, let's send Amy Barrett to the Seventh Circuit, where she belongs. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about judges, and I will in just a moment because the majority leader has now filed for cloture--that is a process that will end up in an up-or-down vote-- on four distinguished nominees for the circuit court of appeals. Coming on the tail end of the remarks of the Democratic leader, I must say that sometimes I feel like Washington, DC, is a parallel universe that bears very little relation to the rest of the country or the rest of the world because to hear the Democratic leader talk about some tax plan being written in secret defies the facts. The facts are, this is going to be done in a very public sort of way. I expect that as soon as Wednesday, the House of Representatives will release their proposal and then, shortly thereafter, the Senate will likewise release its proposal that will then be amended and debated in the Senate Finance Committee just like the House bill will be debated and amended in the House Ways and Means Committee. These will be very public, and indeed they should be because they are going to touch on the ways that I believe we can unleash this sleeping giant of an economy, get the economy growing again, get businesses invested here in the United States, and higher wages and jobs for American families, from which all Americans will benefit, regardless of their tax bracket. I have read that some of our Democratic colleagues--we heard a little bit of this when the President invited the bipartisan Senate Finance Committee members over to the White House just a week or so ago. Some of our Democratic colleagues said: Well, we haven't been included in the process. Well, they made it clear that they don't want to be included, but I hope they will change their mind, and they will have that opportunity during the course of the Senate Finance Committee debate and amendment process. No one will be prohibited from offering an idea or debating an idea as we work through the process of a tax reform package that will, as I said, hopefully bring down the taxes for hard-working American families, let them keep more of what they earn, and, in the process, improve their standard of living. As we reform our business Tax Code--which, as President Obama pointed out in 2011, is literally a self-inflicted wound because we have the highest business tax rate in the world, which makes it more likely that businesses will want to invest abroad in jobs and their infrastructure, rather than invest here in America--we want to bring all of that back here so that investors will invest in jobs in America and so that manufacturers can proudly stamp what they make here in America: ``Made in America.'' That is what we are striving for. Again, I know our Democratic colleague, my friend, the Senator from New York, has a job to do on behalf of the Democrats. But it is, as I described at the outset, a parallel universe from what is actually happening. It does not bear any relationship to the reality that we have offered our Democratic colleagues to participate with us in growing the economy and giving hard-working American families the opportunity to keep more of what they earn and, thus, improve their standard of living. Mr. President, at times this Chamber is marked by a spirit of hard work, cordiality, and bipartisanship. Unfortunately, this is not one of those times. Since President Trump's inauguration, our Democratic colleagues have been needlessly obstructing the confirmation of extremely qualified nominees, and lately their focus has been on obstructing nominees for our Nation's Federal courts. But, certainly, their obstruction has been across the spectrum of nominees--slowing down nominees, forcing us to burn time, and then finally confirming nominees which they, by and large, will vote in favor of. This is done for no other purpose than to make it harder for the President, now that he has been elected, to get his team on the field and to serve the interests of the American people and the President's administration. Lately, as I pointed out, their focus has been on the Federal courts. The majority leader filed four nominations last Thursday, and we hope our Democratic colleagues will think better of dragging out the clock on what is already a certain outcome, which is confirmation of these four nominees. If they do, no one will be surprised. This year, the Democrats have thrown up every obstacle they can, requiring procedural votes, needless debates, and a lot of time burned here on the Senate clock, with no one on the floor talking about anything one way or the other. It is what we call quorum calls here, when America tunes into what is happening on the Senate floor and there is nothing happening, other than the clerk calling the roll from time to time. That is time we could be using for bipartisan legislation. But the goal here for our friends across the aisle is to cause us to burn the time, keep us from doing the people's work, and obstruct the President's nominees to the Federal bench and beyond. The irony here is that our Democratic colleagues have even obstructed judges originally nominated by President Obama, so they are not particularly picky in terms of the judges and the nominees they will obstruct. But all they have really accomplished so far is wasting the Senate's time and trying the patience of the American people, who know that there is more productive work to be done than simply having endless quorum calls and silence on the Senate floor while we burn the time on the clock in order to get these nominees confirmed. Our colleagues know that these tactics will not actually stop a nomination, but they insist on engaging in them anyway, to the detriment of everyone, including the American people. This year, they forced needless cloture votes on seven of eight district and circuit court nominees--more than in any other early Presidency--and they demanded that we use the full 30 hours of floor time per nominee, which Senate rules currently allow for. These are partisan roadblocks that never change the outcome. They are just dilly-dallying. They intend to grind this body's normal procedures to a snail's pace so that nothing much else gets done, and, oh, by the way, then they complain that not enough is being done. That is the tactic. That is the game plan. By way of comparison, during the first year of President Obama's Presidency, only once did Senate Republicans require a cloture vote on one of the President's nominees. In this Trump administration, Senate Democrats have forced cloture votes on all of the President's nominees except for one. This is all a game to waste time--and maybe a little bit for show. These tactics don't change the outcome--which is confirmation-- ironically, because of the even more cynical ploy adopted by Democrats under President Obama. The Senate used to require 60 votes for confirmation of judges. This permitted the minority to block judges who were truly out of the mainstream or who did not enjoy the support of their home State Senators. Senator Harry Reid, when he was majority leader--just a few years ago--changed all that. But it seems as though it backfired on him. He tore up the rule book when he invoked the so- called nuclear option in November of 2013 and changed the Senate rules to jam through three nominees to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, eliminating the so-called filibuster because Democrats were upset that the DC Circuit was blocking regulatory overreach by the Obama administration. Now the filibuster is gone, and I hope that going forward, our Democratic colleagues will recall their previous actions as our caucus proceeds with filling these vacancies. It is good that these outcomes are not in doubt because these positions are too crucial to be left open any longer, even if it means we stay in session over the weekend or at night. On appellate nominations, we are going to move forward with four-- whether the Democrats cooperate or not--because these are nominees who are highly qualified, well-respected jurists and academics. They are the Notre Dame law professor, Amy Barrett, nominated for the Seventh Circuit; Michigan Supreme Court Justice Joan Larsen, nominated for the Sixth Circuit; Colorado Supreme Court Justice Allison Eid, nominated to the Tenth Circuit--that is the seat vacated by Judge Neil Gorsuch, elevated now to the Supreme Court of the United States--and the University of Pennsylvania law professor, Stephanos Bibas, nominated for the Third Circuit. I look forward to talking in more detail about the high intellectual caliber and remarkable qualifications of these four nominees in the coming days. This is going to occupy the rest of this week. It is worth noting at the outset that the four include three of the most accomplished female lawyers in the United States. For now, the important thing to note is our determination to get this done. Under Republican leadership, we are working to deliver for the American people, and confirming judicial nominations is just one example. Today, the Senate is scheduled to confirm Trevor McFadden to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Mr. McFadden was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee--on which I serve--unanimously in July. He is Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. He graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law and has extensive experience in law enforcement. This is someone who was voted unanimously out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, yet Senate Democrats are denying him a voice vote or other expedited process--again, forcing us to burn the clock just to get his nomination voted on. Last week, though, we confirmed Scott Palk of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, despite the same sorts of games. Mr. Palk was originally nominated to the same seat by President Obama in 2015, so one would have thought that our Democratic colleagues would relent and ditch their procedural gimmicks. But no, they didn't, even for a judge originally nominated by President Obama. Fortunately, it didn't matter because Mr. Palk ultimately was confirmed by a substantial margin of 79 to 16. So why the delay? Why the obstruction? Why the foot-dragging if 79 Senators, on a bipartisan basis, are going to confirm the nomination? I, for one, would like to commend the President on his sterling picks, not only of the recent district and circuit court nominees but also of a judge I mentioned a little bit earlier, now Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. To date, four of President Trump's appellate nominees have already been confirmed: two for the Sixth Circuit, one for the Eleventh, and one for the Eighth, respectively. This is an excellent addition to our Nation's Federal judiciary. All of them, I believe, will faithfully interpret the Constitution. They know their job is to say what the law is, not what they believe that it ought to be. The majority leader has been unyielding in his goal of moving forward a productive schedule for the good of the country here in the Senate and moving as swiftly as our rules allow. Stall tactics will not work. They will not prevent us from moving forward with these nominees and confirming them before the week's end. You can count on it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

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 South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know people watching and perhaps reading the newspaper, watching cable TV, and listening to talk radio think nothing ever happens here in Washington, DC, and they would be wrong. Certainly, we can always do better, and I am disappointed we haven't been more successful, but there are some measures we can make in the right direction in important pieces of legislation that make a very profound difference in people's lives. Today I want to talk about a problem that, thanks to a bill passed by the Senate on Monday, we are helping to solve. This has to do with the untested rape kit backlog in our country. Years ago, thanks to a courageous woman named Debbie Smith, I became a lot better informed about the nature of this problem: rape kits, the forensic evidence that is taken in sexual assault cases but which remained in evidence lockers in police stations untested or was sent to laboratories and never processed. At one point, it was estimated that there were as many as 400,000 untested rape kits in our country. As the Presiding Officer knows, this is powerful evidence because of DNA testing. We can literally almost say with certainty whether there is a match between the DNA of a suspect and that in a rape kit. This forensic evidence is collected following a sexual assault. Similarly, we can decide and determine whether there is no match whatsoever and, frankly, exclude somebody who is a potential suspect from being the guilty party by using this same powerful forensic evidence. It is also important not just to solve the crime at hand but also to get sexual predators off the streets because we know this type of offender is likely to strike time and time and time again. The experts tell us that when opportunities don't provide themselves for sexual offenders to go after adults, frequently they will even go after children. So this is very important evidence. As we know, there is typically a statute of limitations that after a period of time a case cannot be prosecuted, but it is really important, as I mentioned, to continue to test as many rape kits as we possibly can to get serial offenders off the streets and to determine whether somebody has been charged or suspected of a crime and is in fact innocent. Thanks to courageous people like Debbie Smith, for whom we have named the Debbie Smith Act, as well as great bipartisan cooperation in the Senate, we have provided funding for the testing of rape kits at the State and local level, which has been supplemented by the Texas Legislature and other State legislatures. In Houston a few years ago, our mayor felt so strongly about this that they took this on as a citywide project, with incredible results. They found a number of hits of previously unsolved crimes, and they were able to bring peace of mind to a lot of people who had been living under a cloud of unsolved crime when they processed these unprocessed rape kits. Nationally, the problem is still big, with as many as 175,000 rape kits that still haven't been analyzed, and this is something we need to continue to attack. It is down from 400,000 at one point, was the estimate, down to 175,000, but that is still unacceptable. Victims of sexual assault, scarred by painful memories and physical trauma, can't afford to wait for funding that is easier to come by. They need their stories to be heard, the evidence to be tested, and the results expedited. Federal, State, and local officials owe them those things. If we dawdle, those cases go cold, and they are the ones who bear the scars and the pain of these unresolved crimes. That is why the Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Reporting Act, called the SAFER Act, is so important. That is the bill I mentioned a moment ago that we passed in the Senate on Monday. It reauthorizes a program created in 2013 that has helped law enforcement reduce the national rape kit backlog. I thank my friend and colleague, Representative Ted Poe over in the House, for sponsoring the House version. The original legislation increased the amount of funds spent on untested kits by 35 percent and allowed 5 to 7 percent of them to be used on audits of existing law enforcement programs. These audits, in turn, uncovered tens of thousands of untested kits across the country, each with evidence that could be used to bring an offender to justice. The new bill passed by the Senate this week goes further. It ensures that pediatric forensic nurses are available for training so that, once they complete it, they are better equipped to respond promptly and appropriately to children suffering from abuse. Finally, the bill extends the sunset provision of the SAFER Program, which will ensure the longevity of a program with a proven history of success. I am grateful to have a wide range of bipartisan support, including the senior Senator from Minnesota, as well as the senior Senators from Nevada and Colorado, who are original cosponsors. This is a good example of legislation that is bipartisan and that makes progress toward solving a very real problem in our country. But, as so often we find the case, there is not much reporting on it, much attention paid, but it is worth noting here on the Senate floor that bipartisan progress on important legislation that helps people's lives become better is being done here in the Senate.

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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 25, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SR-253 to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Commercial Satellite Industry: What's Up and What's on the Horizon.'' Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 25, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SD-406 to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Michael Dourson, of Ohio, to be Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances, and William L. Wehrum, of Delaware, Matthew Z. Leopold, of Florida, and David Ross, of Wisconsin, each to be an Assistant Administrator, all of the Environmental Protection Agency, Paul Trombino III, of Wisconsin, to be Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, and Jeffery Martin Baran, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 25, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SD-406 to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017.'' Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 25, 2017, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Nigeria Security Update.'' Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 25, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-628 to conduct a hearing on: S.1223, Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Repeal Act. Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 25, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-628 to conduct a hearing on: S.1870, Securing urgent resources vital to Indian Empowerment Act 2017; S.1953, Reauthorization of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010; and S.1942, to direct the Attorney General to review, revise, and develop law enforcement and justice protocols appropriate to address missing and murdered Indians. Committee on Veterans' Affairs The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 25, 2017, off the Senate floor to conduct a hearing on nominations. Special Committee on Aging The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 25, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-562 to conduct a hearing entitled ``Working and Aging with Disabilities: From School to Retirement.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, soon the Senate will pass a supplemental appropriations bill that provides much needed relief for folks across the country who are recovering from hurricane and wildfire devastation. While some of these resources will impact Texans who are recovering from Hurricane Harvey, I stress that much more will be needed in my State. I will make one point abundantly clear, which is that Harvey has not been permanently handled in Texas. It is not over and done with, and it is not time to just move on. There was the storm, and now there is the storm after the storm. Nearly 2 months after the hurricane--the most extreme rain event in U.S. history--many Texans are still waiting for normalcy to return to their debris-littered lawns and their torn-up living rooms, to their daily routines, their workplaces, their children's schools. The waters may have receded, but their troubles have not. I have read, for example, about people having to wait 2, 3, or 4 hours before they can actually even speak to Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, representatives, who themselves are overwhelmed with requests that are related not only to Hurricane Harvey but to Hurricane Irma's devastation in Florida and to Maria's flooding in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Never before do I remember a series of natural disasters hitting our Nation in such quick succession. Yet I know, even as the inspectors are still evaluating damaged properties--moving as quickly as they can--FEMA is hiring hundreds of additional staff in the next few weeks to help with the backlog. I am hopeful this will help my fellow Texans, who have grown frustrated and discouraged by the procedural hurdles. As of Sunday, three shelters remain open in Texas, and over 60,000 people are living in hotels because their homes--reeking of mold--are still not ready, and they will not be for months. A teacher I heard about is living on a cot in her classroom while her house undergoes repairs. The mayor of Rockport, one of the most devastated communities along the gulf coast, has said that perhaps one- third of the destroyed areas in his town may never be rebuilt. Hundreds of businesses have yet to reopen, and if they don't, it will make matters much tougher on local residents than they already are. The number of houses yet to be repaired is even larger than the number of businesses. The mayor of Port Aransas says that 75 percent of the homes in his community--three-quarters, just imagine--were severely damaged or destroyed. These are just a few of the reasons the situation demands ongoing attention, as well as the full extent of government resources. Last month Congress got started--that was before subsequent hurricanes occurred--and the first wave of disaster relief was $15.25 billion. Then the House passed the second wave, a $36.5 billion disaster relief package to replenish FEMA's nearly depleted coffers and to address the National Flood Insurance Program, which should help pay some Texas claims. Here in the Senate, the cloture vote on this second wave was yesterday, and I am glad we moved to end debate. It is clear to me that Texas will need significant additional Federal assistance for our recovery efforts. As I have told folks back home, we don't expect to be treated any better than anyone else, but we are not going to be treated any worse. Last week, I spoke with President Trump and OMB Director Rick Mulvaney, and they made a commitment to me that there would be another funding request coming over in mid-November that would include Texas- specific hurricane relief. I realize that the folks impacted by Irma and Maria are also reeling, as well, and we want to make sure that we are locking arms with all of our colleagues who represent the areas hit by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and also those hit by the wildfires out West. We are working together. I appreciate the President's pledge, and I will continue to work with Senator Cruz and with Governor Abbott to make sure that Texas has what it needs, not only to make a full recovery but a timely one as well. Tax Reform Mr. President, at lunch, the President of the United States will be joining us to discuss a different but very important topic, and that is Federal tax reform. We want to make sure that hard-working Americans get to keep more of what they earn in their paycheck and that we can help them improve their standard of living by reducing their tax burden. We passed a budget resolution last week that was step one to getting where we need to be. So I am excited the President is joining us today, and I look forward to hearing his ideas. It is important that we all pull together to accomplish this joint goal. We appreciate his engagement on the issue, which has been clear from day one. Congressional Review Act Resolution Finally, Mr. President, I would like to bring up one additional matter that we will be voting on soon, and that is the repeal of the recent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule, which governs how community banks, among others, resolve disputes with consumers. This rule that the CFPB issued bans using arbitration. Arbitration is a widely accepted method of resolving disputes between consumers and banks and other financial institutions, and it actually increases the benefit that flows to the consumer, as opposed to the alternatives, which are class action lawsuits that enrich lawyers, whereas consumers get pennies on the dollar. The CFPB's own data shows that the rule would transfer hundreds of millions of dollars from businesses to plaintiffs' lawyers over the next 5 years. According to a recent Treasury report, the rule could generate 3,000 additional class action lawsuits over the next 5 years, costing businesses $500 million in defense fees alone and obviously enriching those who would benefit more than the consumers themselves; that is, their lawyers. The CFPB data itself shows that the vast majority of class action lawsuits delivered next to no relief to the class in question-- consumers. And the Treasury report found that the agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, failed to consider much less onerous alternatives, like increased disclosure or a more limited ban. I have been around long enough to remember that back in the eighties there was a movement called alternative dispute resolution, led by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, who pointed out that while access to courts was absolutely critical, unfortunately, because of the delay and expense of litigation, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms could actually benefit consumers more if they chose to resort to those alternative dispute mechanisms, and that is exactly what arbitration is. I believe that the CFPB has gone above and beyond its authority in eliminating this very meaningful way for consumers to get compensated when they get involved in disputes with their bank or other financial institutions, and there is no reason for us to enrich a class of lawyers who bring these lawsuits and see consumers end up with pennies on the dollar, which is what the status quo would permit. Thankfully, we have the power of the Congressional Review Act to overturn the rule, as the House has already done. I urge my colleagues to repeal the CFPB arbitration rule so that we can get rid of this harmful regulation, which imposes obvious costs and offers invisible benefits. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know, for people watching this debate, it is easy to be confused. You hear the Democratic leader claiming that this is about the people who have no power, fighting against the most powerful institutions this country has to offer in their, somehow, trying to disadvantage them when, in fact, the opposite is true. In situations like this, it is frequently a good thing to follow the money. The reason the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau wants to ban arbitration as a means of alternative dispute resolution is that the trial lawyers, who benefit from the huge attorneys' fees awards, do not like the idea that they are, basically, being boxed out of that dispute resolution system; whereas, we know from the studies that have been done that consumers actually benefit from a cheaper, more efficient, more timely way of resolving disputes with financial institutions with which they may have disagreements. Back in the eighties, I still remember when I was a district judge in San Antonio, TX. Warren Burger, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, made the point that it was so expensive and so time-consuming for individual citizens to resolve their disputes in courts of law that we needed what we all called an alternative dispute resolution system that was able to resolve these disputes in a more timely, more cost- effective sort of way, recognizing that very few people could afford to pay a lawyer an hourly fee or even a contingent fee for protracted civil litigation. Basically, ordinary consumers were frozen out of the dispute resolution process and were denied their day in court. That system actually worked pretty well, including arbitration, which, according to a Federal statute--the Federal Arbitration Act--is an impartial tribunal that, basically, decides these disputes in an efficient, cost-effective sort of way. In fact, we know from the studies that have been done that consumers actually benefit more from arbitration than they do as members of a class in class action lawsuits, where consumers typically get pennies on the dollar and the class counsel, the lawyers involved, are, perhaps, awarded millions of dollars. You have to ask the question: Whose benefit is that for? Is it really for the consumers or is it for the lawyers? I think the answer is pretty clear. It is not for the consumers. So, when I hear our friend across the aisle, the distinguished Democratic leader, cry crocodile tears for consumers, really, those are for the class action lawyers who are not part of the arbitration process. I think it is really important to make that point, which is that every single study that has been done shows that consumers actually benefit from arbitration compared to ordinary litigation. Not everybody can afford to be O.J. Simpson and hire the very best lawyers in America and try a case for weeks on end at a cost of millions of dollars. It just, simply, does not work that way for most people. So this is a very efficient, cost-effective, fair way to resolve those disputes in a way that consumers benefit. I do not understand, honestly, our colleagues across the aisle, except for their desire to demonize banks and large financial institutions, but it is not just large banks and financial institutions; it is community banks. We are talking about contractual arbitration provisions, which allow consumers to benefit from a means to resolve disputes with their local community banks, and they do not often involve huge amounts of money. Typically, lawyers are not going to be interested in a claim that do not involve much money, which is why most often, when one does get litigated, it is in the context of a class action, in which they aggregate all of these claims for thousands of people. Then, as we know, typically, it ends in some sort of settlement from which the consumers get coupons--frequently, no money-- and the class lawyers reap millions of dollars. Our colleagues across the aisle act as if they have the better part of this argument when, actually, they are arguing on behalf of one of the narrowest, wealthiest special interests in America today, and that is the trial lawyers. They act as if they are the friend of the consumer when they are actually arguing to the detriment of the consumer, because the consumer benefits from this less expensive, more efficient, more timely resolution of disputes with financial institutions, which is through contractual arbitration. There is the fact that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is sort of an anomaly in our system, is accountable to no one and not susceptible to oversight by Congress because of the way it was created. It is not even funded by appropriations of Congress as other government agencies are. It is really a rogue agency in so many ways-- not accountable to the American people, not subject to the oversight of Congress, not dependent upon Congress for the appropriations to, basically, do its work. So, when it overreaches like this and essentially outlaws this efficient, cost-effective, impartial way of resolving civil disputes, this is, perhaps, the greatest demonstration of the abuse that was wrought by the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the first place. When consumers benefit and trial lawyers do not, I don't know how you can justify the arguments on the other side, except to say that they are the party of the trial bar and that they really don't care about the consumers because they realize that consumers will end up with pennies on the dollar and that they would actually be better off in using the arbitration provisions in these contracts that are subject to the Federal Arbitration Act. Actually, this is a Federal law that mandates the procedures by which these arbitration panels are created. It is not as if the banks get to choose who sits on the arbitration panels. It is not as if they get to pick the judges in the cases. These are nonpartisan arbitrators who will decide the facts in law and let the chips fall where they may. I, for one, am not buying the crocodile tears of our friends across the aisle. They are not arguing in favor of the consumer; they are arguing on behalf of the trial bar, which gets rich on these cases. It is not just the fact that this handful of cases from which the lawyers get rich solves the problem, because there are many people who have legitimate disputes that need to be resolved from which the lawyers just simply turn away and say that that case will not get me enough money to justify my involvement. So guess what. You are out of luck. Good luck in finding a lawyer to litigate your case for $100 or $200. You are just not going to get a chance to do that. If a class action lawyer will not take the case, you are out of luck. I guess our friends across the aisle do not care. As for the fact that consumers could get recourse through arbitration in their using the Federal Arbitration Act--from an impartial panel that will decide what the facts are and grant awards without having to go to the expense and time associated with ordinary litigation--they, simply, do not really care about that. I would say, notwithstanding the dystopian view of our friends across the aisle that, somehow, this is a great conspiracy against the forgotten man and woman in our country, the opposite is actually true. What they are trying to do is advocate for the rich and the powerful--the trial lawyers in America--and against the best interests of the consumer, who benefits from this contractual arbitration provision. I hope that our colleagues will not be persuaded by the arguments on the other side, because there is just, simply, no factual basis for them. I hope that in a little while here, when we vote on this congressional resolution of disapproval, we will have a solid vote in the disapproving of this ban on the use of alternative dispute resolution to resolve disputes, because a ``no'' vote, basically, is a vote on behalf of the rich and the powerful--the trial lawyers in America--who get enriched by the status quo in the absence of an alternative dispute resolution system.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 6 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on banking, housing and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 24, 2017, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: David J. Ryder, of New Jersey, to be Director of the United States Mint, Department of the Treasury, and Hester Maria Peirce, of Ohio, and Robert J. Jackson, Jr., of New York, both to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission. committee on finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 24, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 to consider nominations. committee on finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 24, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 to consider nominations of: Kevin K. McAleenan, of Hawaii, to be Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 24, 2017, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Assessing U.S. Policy towards Burma: Geopolitical, Economic, and Humanitarian Considerations.'' select committee on intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 24, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., in room SH-219 to conduct a closed hearing. subcommittee on oceans, atmosphere, fisheries, and coast guard The Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 24, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., in room SR-253 to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: Fisheries Science''.