John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I came to the floor during the last part of the remarks of the distinguished Democratic leader, and it just reminded me of a headline I saw in this morning's newspaper that just, to me, exemplifies how dishonest, sometimes, the way questions are framed here when it comes to dealing with our financial responsibilities. The headline in the Washington Post talked about President Trump's proposal slashing Medicaid, like the Democrats have criticized the House healthcare replacement bill slashing Medicaid even though, as a factual matter, Medicaid would continue to grow year after year after year. As the distinguished Presiding Officer and I have previously discussed, one question is, What is a responsible rate of Consumer Price Index or inflation to deal with medical inflation so that when we return Medicaid to the States, spending at let's say 2016 levels, what is a responsible rate of continued growth to deal with medical inflation so that the States are not left with an unsustainable burden? But the idea that spending at current levels, plus an additional cost-of-living index year after year after year, means that Medicaid spending won't go up every year--next year it will be more than this year. The following year it will be more than next year. So only in the fevered imagination of, apparently, the headline writers at the Washington Post and in some of our Democratic friends could that be considered a cut. In the rest of the country, they would consider that as Medicaid growing, not being cut. It is true that one of the things the House did that I think is an important reform of one of our principle entitlement provisions was to put some sort of sustainable cap on the growth of spending on entitlements, which perviously had been uncapped. Some day there is going to be a day of reckoning in this country when it comes to spending. We have $20 trillion in debt. We know now that the Federal Reserve is loosening its hold on interest rates, that those are creeping up, and one of the estimates is that if interest rates due to improved economic performance were to reach historic norms, we would soon be paying more for interest on the national debt than we would be paying for defense spending. That is simply unsustainable, not to mention the fact that we would then be essentially appropriating 30 percent of what the Federal Government spends and leaving 70 percent untouched. We can't get the country on a sustainable financial path just dealing with 30 percent of what the Federal Government spends, and we need to have a serious conversation, not a misleading characterization of the problem. We need a serious conversation about the reality facing our country and future generations because right now we are spending their inheritance, so to speak. In other words, I consider it an act of immorality for me to be spending money and forcing my children and future generations to pay it back. That is just not fair to them, and we need to come to grips with that sooner rather than later.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. 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), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea'', the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) would have voted ``yea'', and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) 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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, last night, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel to oversee the investigation into Russia's alleged meddling in the election last fall and any related misconduct. Robert Mueller is perhaps the single-most qualified individual to lead such an investigation, in my view, and he is certainly independent. As a former FBI Director--the longest serving FBI Director since J. Edgar Hoover--he, by any measure, has the experience and the credibility and the credentials to conduct a nonpartisan investigation and come to a conclusion based on the facts alone. We could use some conclusions based on facts here in Washington, with the relentless torrent of rumor, gossip, and suspicion but very few facts. It is clear to me that Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein felt this was in the best interests of the Department of Justice and the country, and I trust his judgment on the matter. I do think there is a related concern now that a special counsel has been chosen; that is, the proliferation of hearings and contact with witnesses and the principals over this Russia matter that while certainly legitimate in terms of doing oversight, which is our responsibility as the legislative branch, we can't--and shouldn't-- intrude or perhaps undermine inadvertently the investigation being conducted by the executive branch and the special counsel. I think this is something we should talk about as a Senate because I know each committee that has some jurisdictional hook on this issue wants, of course, to do its job, but I think, if we don't deconflict between committees, as well as between the role of the Justice Department and the special counsel, we could risk inadvertently harming the investigation. I trust no one would want to do that intentionally. Sometimes, having served myself--as has the distinguished Presiding Officer as the former attorney general of Alaska--it is interesting, this is my first legislative role in government. I have been here for a while now, and I am starting to get the hang of things, but the fact is, sometimes I think legislators are confused about their role when it comes to investigations. They are not the FBI. Legislators are not the Department of Justice. They can't investigate a counterintelligence matter or a criminal matter. That is simply within the exclusive purview of the executive branch. What we can do and what we must do, in my view, is to continue to conduct a bipartisan oversight investigation into these matters for our own purposes, which are legislative purposes, not executive branch or prosecutorial purposes. Now that Director Mueller has been appointed as special counsel and will be doing that on behalf of the Department of Justice and the executive branch, I think it is really important for us to again consider whether this proliferation of hearings and running down every rabbit trail that happens to pop up is really in the best interests of getting to the bottom of this matter. I believe it is our duty--and this would be the case no matter who was in the White House--to get the facts and to conduct our legitimate oversight investigation here but in a way that cooperates with or certainly at least coordinates and deconflicts with the Department of Justice's investigation under the auspices of Director Mueller. In the meantime, I will continue to work with my colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee on a broad bipartisan basis to conduct the kind of investigation that is entirely appropriate so we can get to the bottom of this matter. The American people, of course, deserve nothing less.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I know people outside the beltway think nothing ever happens here--and certainly that nothing ever happens on a bipartisan basis--but they would be wrong on both counts. Last night, the Senate passed a piece of bipartisan legislation called the American Law Enforcement Heroes Act. It is a great example of legislation everyone can agree on and get behind. The main goal is to connect veterans--those who have served in our military and have a passion for public service--to opportunities in State and local law enforcement. When we think about it, who better than our retiring military personnel who are accustomed to wearing one uniform, moving then into the civilian law enforcement world wearing another uniform but continuing their legacy of public service. That way, those who have voluntarily put themselves in harm's way to keep the peace and promote American interests abroad and defend our homeland can continue the record of public service at home. For veterans, that can mean a rewarding job in law enforcement. Through their training, experience, and sacrifice, there is no doubt that our veterans are equipped with valuable skills to keep our communities safe. By prioritizing existing Federal funds for State and local law enforcement agencies to hire veterans, we can better serve them as they transition into civilian life. We know that can be a challenging transition, but that is exactly what the American Law Enforcement Heroes Act that we passed yesterday does. For State and local law enforcement groups, that means they can attract the best qualified men and women who are eager to serve their country in a new way. So this is really a win-win. Fortunately, this legislation builds on the good work already underway in places like my home State of Texas. Over the last several months, I have had a chance to visit cities and counties all over the State that are actively recruiting veterans to serve as police officers or sheriffs. That includes law enforcement leaders from San Antonio to Houston, to Fort Worth. As my colleagues may recall, following the terrible killing of five police officers and shooting of seven more in Dallas, Police Chief David Brown made an appeal for people who were protesting or otherwise concerned about the law enforcement agencies involved to sign up and join them--to be a part of the solution and not just protesting the problem. Thankfully, we have set a tremendous example in Texas of how hiring veterans to serve as law enforcement officers benefits all of our communities. I am glad this bill will follow their inspiration and help communities across the country hire more veterans. I said before that this legislation is something everyone can agree on, in a polarized political environment, and that is of course evident by the broad bipartisan support it has received. Let me express my gratitude to the senior Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, as well as the senior Senators from Connecticut and California--all Democratic colleagues--for being my original cosponsors on the bill. I am also grateful to my Republican colleagues, including Senator Cruz, as well as the junior Senator from North Carolina and the senior Senators from Iowa, Utah, and Nevada, for working with us on this legislation. My friend Congressman Will Hurd on the House side introduced the same bill there, and I am hopeful it will pass sometime today so we can get this to the President's desk for his signature without delay. I would also note that the American Law Enforcement Heroes Act is backed by major law enforcement groups across the country, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the Major County Sheriffs of America, the Major City Chiefs Association, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I have been grateful for their help along the way toward passage of this bill. I look forward to this bill becoming a law--hopefully, this week, as we continue to celebrate Police Week honoring the service of the men and women in blue who keep our communities safe--and making it clear that this Congress cares not only about our veterans but also our law enforcement officials as well. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) 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. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I noted yesterday that this week we celebrate National Police Week. In particular, we recognize and remember those law enforcement officers who have paid the ultimate price and sacrificed their lives to protect the communities in which they serve. Yesterday, I had the chance to speak about Javier Vega, Jr., a Border Patrol agent who served in South Texas and was tragically killed by two illegal immigrant criminals. Today, I want to talk about the attack on law enforcement officers in Dallas almost a year ago. Last July, about 800 people gathered in downtown Dallas for a peaceful march. Given the size of the event, dozens of law enforcement officers were on hand to protect the protesters so they could exercise their fundamental constitutional right. Before 9 p.m., the event had been going very well, by any standard. There wasn't any violence reported in the crowd, even though some similar events across the country hadn't been as calm. But in Dallas, it was clear that there existed a mutual respect between the citizens protesting and law enforcement. There were even social media posts of protesters embracing police officers in a show of solidarity and friendship. Unfortunately, the night would soon be robbed of any enduring image of that sort of positive scene. A man--someone who came that night explicitly to target law enforcement officers--opened fire, killing five officers and wounding seven more--the deadliest day for American law enforcement since 9/11. The officers who lost their lives that day--Brent Thompson, Patrick Zamarippa, Lorne Aherns, Michael Krol, and Michael Smith--will not be forgotten. They, like the other officers on duty that night--many of whom were injured by the gunmen--didn't look the other way or run the other way when the violence erupted. Like the heroes they are, they ran to the danger, not away from the gunshots and the uproar. They, like law enforcement officers across the country, weren't about to shy away from doing their job, even if that meant putting their own lives on the line. So today, I want to commend the men and women of the Dallas police force, a group of men and women with incredible courage and unflinching valor in the face of danger. This Police Week I am particularly grateful to them and to the officers and first responders all over the State of Texas and all around our Nation who count the costs and choose to serve their communities day after day, often with little thanks or recognition. As I said last summer, it shouldn't take an event of this scale to jolt our consciences into action. As legislators, we have tremendous opportunities to better support our men and women in blue who risk their lives to protect ours. We have a duty to do all we can to keep them safe and to keep our society safe and peaceful. So as we celebrate Police Week, I hope we can each do our part to better support the men and women serving in law enforcement. Later today, Mr. President, I plan to introduce a piece of legislation called the Back the Blue Act, along with Senator Cruz and Senator Tillis. This is legislation that makes clear our support for these public servants who spend their lives protecting us and serving us. The Back the Blue Act would create a new Federal crime for killing or attempting to kill a Federal judge, a law enforcement officer, or a federally funded public safety officer. It would create a new crime for assaulting a law enforcement officer, as well. There is no justification--none at all--for attacking a police officer. It is an act of anarchy to attack the very people who help keep our society safe and protected. We need to know and need to show that we value their lives, and we need to make it absolutely clear that we will hold those who carry out crimes against our police officers accountable. The Back the Blue Act sends that message loud and clear. I think it is important to point out that this legislation would also help make our communities stronger by allowing grant funds to be used for efforts to help foster more trust between police and the communities they protect. This bill would better serve the men and women who work tirelessly in our communities every day. So I would hope our colleagues would join me in supporting it. We can do more to protect and support our law enforcement officers, and we can start with the Back the Blue Act to do just exactly that. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am delighted to be here during Police Week, along with our colleagues from Missouri, Delaware, Minnesota, and Iowa to celebrate the men and women in blue who put their lives at risk so that our communities can be safer, more stable, more prosperous places. I am reflecting this week on the terrible experience in Dallas, TX, about a year ago when Chief David Brown inspired the Nation with his response to the terrible tragedy there that took the lives of five Dallas police officers and injured seven more. Following the attack, Chief Brown made clear that if you want to see change or if you want to protest law enforcement, why not instead join their ranks and be a part of the solution. I am grateful to him for his encouragement of the young men and women who have many opportunities to serve their communities--many in uniform. The truth is, we can do a lot of good by inspiring confidence in law enforcement and showing our support for them. We saw what was referred to by the former Director of the FBI as the ``Ferguson effect,'' where, in fact, he said it was his view that many police officers were afraid of being criticized unjustly, so they withheld or were reticent in acting in the face of a criminal activity. We need to make sure that our law enforcement personnel know we are firmly behind them and we will always support them. As Chief Brown liked to point out, if somebody has crossed a line they should not cross, that is an appropriate subject for disciplinary action on a police force. There is never any excuse for assaulting a police officer. That is the thin blue line between us and anarchy in our society. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for working with me on the American Law Enforcement Heroes Act that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee just mentioned. This bill will help State and local law enforcement hire more veterans into their ranks. Obviously, that is relevant experience and training that can help our law enforcement departments across the country be better and take advantage of these great patriots who have now taken off one uniform to put on another. We know there are places in the country where, despite the best efforts of law enforcement, danger is spiking violent crime rates in some parts of the country due to dangerous criminals like the MS-13 gang, a vicious gang from Central America that is wreaking havoc in parts of the country. We can't let our officers face these dangers without knowing we have their backs. I am delighted to be here with our colleagues celebrating National Police Week and making it clear to the men and women in blue that we unequivocally support them and stand by them and need to let all of our country men and women know that these are true American heroes who deserve our respect and support every day, not just during Police Week. I yield to our friend and our colleague from Minnesota.

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. Madam President, this is National Police Week--a time each year when we remember and honor those who have fallen in the line of duty. There are more than 900,000 law enforcement officers serving in our country, and tragically every year dozens lose their lives defending our communities and our freedoms. This year, as part of National Police Week, I am so thankful that Javier Vega, Jr., one of Texas's own, was honored at the National Law Enforcement Officer Memorial over the weekend, right here in Washington, DC. Just a few hours ago, I had the honor of meeting his family--his wife, his children, and his parents--along with several of his friends whom he served alongside in the U.S. Border Patrol. They know, all too well, the high cost paid by our law enforcement officers who put themselves at risk every day. Javier--who was known by his close family and friends as Harvey--grew up in La Feria, TX, a small town in South Texas. He was a man known for putting others before himself--someone who would always serve rather than be served. That desire turned first into a military career. He enlisted in the Marine Corps right out of high school, and later he put himself through college. Then he decided he hadn't done all he wanted to do in public service so he joined the Border Patrol, and just like everything else he pursued in life, he dedicated himself to tirelessly serving others and serving his country. Sadly, that service was cut short when he and his family, while out on a fishing trip on a Sunday afternoon, were ambushed by two men who tried to rob them. The clash turned violent. Javier immediately thought of protecting others before himself so he jumped into action to fend off the attackers and defend his family. Tragically, he was killed by the two men--illegal immigrant criminals who had been reportedly deported but managed repeatedly to find their way back into the country, even after committing serious crimes. What a testament to the great need we have to strengthen our border security and justice system to keep us all safe. Now, there is no denying that Javier Vega, Jr., was taken from his family, his community, and from all of us far too soon. So while we consider the fallen this week, like Javier, and their lives of service, I hope we can also take time to consider how we can better support and serve those who have promised to defend us to the point of risking their very lives. As we learn from the story of Javier, one obvious way we can do that is by making sure our Federal laws are fully enforced to protect our communities from those who would take advantage of our generosity and commit violent crimes, even though they are not in the country legally. We have a chance to do more for our law enforcement officers, and we should always look for ways to do right by them. Now isn't the time to look the other way or to pretend that real problems facing our Nation and our law enforcement community will simply go away. So during this year's National Police Week, I look forward to playing my part to put forward policies that better support their mission to defend and protect communities all across the country. Let me thank the family of Javier Vega, Jr.--particularly his wife, his children, and his parents who are here with us today--for letting me share his story and honor his service. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I was listening with interest to our friend and colleague from Minnesota talk about the Russia investigation. I agree with her 100 percent that it is our responsibility to get to the bottom of what exactly happened with respect to Russian involvement in our elections, much as they got involved in the elections in France, using the combined process commonly known as active measures. Active measures are a combination of cyber espionage, propaganda, and a use of social media through paid trolls who can then actually try to raise the visibility of some of this propaganda such that it then becomes part of the mainstream media and becomes accepted as part of the debate in democratic societies. I believe we share a bipartisan and universal commitment to get to the bottom of what happened in our last election. I would note that there are two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who actually serve as members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is actively involved in a rigorous bipartisan investigation. That would be myself and Senator Feinstein, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who is also the former chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator Feinstein has said recently that there is no evidence of collusion between the administration and Russia. I think she would share with me a commitment not to stop there but to find out where the facts take us. Indeed, thanks to Chairman Burr and thanks to Vice Chairman Warner, our bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee has unprecedented access to raw intelligence, from the National Security Agency, the CIA, and from all sources of the intelligence community. We have access to some of the most sensitive intelligence gathered by the U.S. Government. I think that is due to the credit and leadership of Chairman Burr and Vice Chairman Warner that our committee has remained bipartisan and we are leaving no stone unturned to get to the bottom of what exactly happened. So I know people are concerned, and I share that concern. We need to come up with a program of countermeasures to deal with this because the Russian Government has been amping up their game for some time now, and now they are operating at certainly dangerous levels when it comes to trying to interfere in our most basic democratic institutions, like our elections. I would say, as far as the Department of Justice is concerned, that Rod Rosenstein was confirmed by this body by a vote of 94 to 6. That is probably the only Trump nomination so far since he has been President that has enjoyed such broad bipartisan support. It is because of his distinguished record, most recently as the U.S. attorney in Baltimore. I remember hearing from our Senators from Maryland, for example, Democrats who were praising Rod Rosenstein and saying he was exactly the kind of person we needed in this sensitive job as Deputy Attorney General. But now our colleagues seem to forget their very own conviction and vote on Rod Rosenstein, and now they say that he can't be fair, that he has somehow an appearance of a conflict of interest, making it necessary to appoint a special counsel, which, by the way, also then reports to the leadership at the Department of Justice. I think we ought to give Mr. Rosenstein a chance to demonstrate that he is capable of leading that investigation at the Department of Justice, understanding that our role here in the Congress is not to pursue a criminal investigation and case. That is the job of the Department of Justice. Our job, in parallel fashion, is for oversight reasons and to let the American people and ourselves know exactly what happened. That is why the investigation of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is so important, in addition to the hearings we are having in the Judiciary Committee, on which the Senator from Minnesota and I happen to serve as well. So we do need to get to the bottom of what happened, and I am confident we will. It is our duty, and we will get the job done.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

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