Tom Cotton

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I say to the Presiding Officer, I am glad you are here to replace me as the Presiding Officer of the Senate. I spent the last hour of the Senate presiding, and for those of you in the Gallery who don't know these things, I will pull back the curtain a little bit. It is called Presiding Officer duty, not Presiding Officer privilege or honor, because it is reserved for the young Senators who are new to the Senate, such as Senator Sullivan and me. It also means that we actually have to listen to our colleagues' speeches, which doesn't happen very often around here anymore. This morning I had the privilege of listening to the Democratic leader's speech about our tax bill and the fact that we are going to repeal the hated mandate of ObamaCare as part of this tax bill, and I just can't let stand what he said without correcting the record. First, the Senator from New York said that we are ``injecting healthcare into the tax bill.'' Injecting healthcare into the tax bill? I would remind him and all the other Democrats who have been denouncing this decision on the Senate Finance Committee that the individual mandate is a tax according not to me, not to Republicans, but to the Obama administration. That is what they argued in 2012 to the Supreme Court, even though they contended throughout the debate on ObamaCare in 2009 and 2010 that it wasn't a tax. In 2012, they argued to the Supreme Court that the ObamaCare mandate is a tax, and the Supreme Court upheld it as a tax. I am willing to bet that the Democratic leader issued a statement in the summer of 2012 applauding that decision which held that the individual mandate is a tax. After all, it is collected on your 1040. It is collected by the IRS. It doesn't get more ``taxy'' than that. My second point is on the claim that 13 million Americans will lose their insurance--lose their insurance--if we repeal the mandate. Well, two-thirds of the American people want us to repeal the mandate, so they must be up to something. Secondly, let's think about what the mandate repeal does. It doesn't cut a single dime out of Medicaid, it doesn't cut a single dime out of insurance subsidies for people on the exchanges, and it doesn't change a single regulation of Obamacare. All it says is that the IRS cannot fine you for being unable to afford the insurance that ObamaCare made unaffordable in the first place. That is right. Today, if you cannot afford your insurance because ObamaCare made it unaffordable, the IRS will fine you and your family up to $2,000 a year, and that number goes up every year. Let me tell you, more than five out of six households who pay that fine make less than the median income in this country. That is right. That is a direct tax on working families and poor people because they can't afford the insurance that ObamaCare made unaffordable. In Arkansas, there are over 55,000 families who already have to deal with the insecurity and financial hardship of not having health insurance and who then have to pay a fine to the IRS. That is why two-thirds of the American people have wanted us to repeal the individual mandate of ObamaCare since the very day that law was passed, and that is why we are about to finally repeal that mandate. In the meantime, it is going to pay for more tax relief for working- class families. We are going to bring rates down for all of our families, preserve more popular or widely used deductions or credits that help people make ends meet, such as the home mortgage interest deduction credit. It will help them be a little more generous to their church or local charities through the charitable deduction. It will help them offset the cost of some of their property or State and local income taxes--all because we are going to repeal the hated ObamaCare mandate. I know the Democrats are in high dudgeon these days. Turn on C-SPAN, if you have nothing better to do, and watch the Senate Finance Committee, and they will say: Oh, we are injecting healthcare into the tax bill. Oh, 13 million people are going to lose their insurance. What we are doing is repealing the most hated tax of ObamaCare and giving the American people the freedom to choose insurance that is right for them without being threatened by a fine from the IRS if that insurance doesn't meet some Washington bureaucrat's definition of what is suitable. That is why two-thirds of the American people support the repeal of the individual mandate, and that is why, when we repeal it, the American people are going to have a big victory, notwithstanding what the Democratic leader or any other Democratic Senator has said. Mr. President, I yield my time. Have fun during Presiding Officer duty. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the Zatezalo nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today is an important day on our promise to deliver tax relief for America's working families and our businesses, to create more jobs and grow our economy faster. The House Ways and Means Committee is about to unveil their first draft of a tax cut bill. That is a good step forward after we both passed our budgets a couple of weeks ago. As we move forward through this process, it is important that we all recognize that tax cuts are a way to let the American people and our businesses keep more of their money, not the government's money but their money. We also have to be mindful of the impact it has on our staggering national debt of over $20 trillion and rising deficits. We can expect the economy to grow at a much healthier rate than it has in recent years if we pass a good tax bill. But we also need to look for other ways to offset the costs of those tax cuts to a degree. There have been a lot of discussions during the year about what I would consider unwise and painful changes to our tax law. Eliminating deductions, credits, exclusions, exemptions--they are popular and widespread. Some people call that the spinach, in addition to the ice cream of tax cuts. However, I have what I would call maybe a creative idea, a novel idea--one that I think is gaining momentum in the Senate and in the House. We can repeal the individual mandate of ObamaCare and save $300 to $400 billion for the Federal Government and therefore deliver more tax relief to our families and our workers and our businesses. That is not my math. That is the math of the Congressional Budget Office. They have said repeatedly that eliminating the individual mandate of ObamaCare would save $300 to $400 billion. That is a lot of tax cuts. The individual mandate has also been the most unpopular part of ObamaCare. More than two-thirds of Americans want to see it repealed. The House has voted repeatedly to repeal it. The Senate has voted to repeal it. Even some Democrats have said that they want to repeal the individual mandate as well. It is the first time in our country's history, after all, that the Federal Government has said: You must buy the product of a private company for the mere privilege of being an American citizen. We also know that the individual mandate simply has not worked. It was designed to hold down premiums on the ObamaCare exchanges. That has not been the case. Despite the individual mandate being in place now for 4 years, we continue to see premiums spiral out of control. So I think it is a pretty reasonable proposal to repeal the most hated part of ObamaCare to help pay for tax cuts the American people want rather than trying to eliminate popular and widely used deductions, credits, exemptions, and exclusions. Moreover, it allows us to make more of the tax cut bill permanent because the $300 to $400 billion savings over a 10-year period is just a 10-year period, but it will continue to save money after those 10 years. With the crazy way we do our budgeting around here, that allows us to make more of those tax cuts permanent so that our families and our businesses can have greater predictability to save and invest and grow our economy. It is also a kind of tax cut for working-class Americans in its own right. According to IRS data, more than five out of six households that paid the mandate fine last year made less than the median income. They were in the bottom half of income earners. So what are we doing? We are imposing a fine on the working class and working poor because they can't afford the insurance that ObamaCare made unaffordable in the first place. That is crazy. We can do this in a way that makes it easier to pass a tax bill. I know some of my colleagues around here, especially some of my Republican colleagues, say: Oh, no. We can't go back to healthcare. It is going to make the tax bill a little harder to pass. That is nonsense. It makes the tax bill easier to pass--easier to pass because it helps make the fiscal picture balance, and it helps deliver more tax cuts to our families and our businesses back home. Some of my Democratic colleagues, drawing on that same estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, will say: You are going to take healthcare away from 15 million people. That is nonsense. This bill doesn't cut a single dime out of ObamaCare, not even one penny, not one penny taken out of Medicaid, not one penny taken out of the subsidies from the exchanges, not a single regulation change. It simply says that the IRS will not fine you if you cannot afford the insurance that ObamaCare made unaffordable. The $300 to $400 billion--even in Washington, that is a lot of money, and that is money that is better left in the pockets of America's workers and families and on the financial statements of businesses that are looking to expand their operations, increase their wages, and hire more workers. No, this hasn't been part of the tax debate for a long time. This Chamber considered repealing the mandate as part of our healthcare debate, but the Obama administration called the individual mandate a tax. In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality saying that it was a tax. The IRS collects it. You pay it on your 1040. That is about the ``taxiest'' provision I can think of. Let's make a commonsense decision, even if it is a little late in the game. Repeal the individual mandate. Pay for more tax cuts for families and businesses. Make a tax bill easier to pass. Deliver on the promise that we made to the American people to repeal the most unpopular part of ObamaCare and have a very big victory for the American people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I want to clarify something about what is going to happen this afternoon. Whenever a Democratic Senator says they are worried about the state of our military, that they are horrified about the kind of cuts we are making, and they can't sleep at night because of what we are doing to our troops in the field, don't believe them. They don't mean it. They are not serious. It is all for show because they had a perfect opportunity to stop all of these terrible cuts--and not just for the troops, for their own State, for their constituents, even for their little parochial projects. What did they do? They turned it down. They said no. Well, actually I take that back. They didn't say no. They couldn't even bring themselves to say no. They didn't have the courage to say no. They did something much worse. They said nothing because we are not even going to vote on the amendment I wanted to offer, which would have repealed the sequester spending cuts for defense and nondefense-- defense and nondefense spending. Now, the Members of this body know I am no fan of frivolous, pork- barrel spending. A lot of the projects that my Democratic colleagues sponsored could easily fall in that category, and we should rein that sort of thing in at a time when we are $20 trillion in debt, but I understand the only way we were going to get something done about the radical spending cuts to our military was to forge a bipartisan compromise. After all, it is not like the sequester spending cuts really did that much to control spending. Did spending go down in 2011, 2012, 2013? Yes, it went from $3.6 trillion to $3.5 trillion, to $3.4 trillion, but the sequester wasn't even in effect for those first 2 years. Spending went down because Republicans won control of the House in 2010. At the end of 2013, however, Congress raised the budget caps and pushed off the sequester for those 2 years ahead. So, by 2015, Federal spending was back to $3.6 trillion, and it has been growing ever since. Time and time again, Congress has proven itself utterly incapable of sticking to the caps under the Budget Control Act of 2011. Instead of actually saving money, all the sequester does is create an endless series of crises for Congress to escape just in the nick of time. Take this year. We all know what is going to happen. We just passed a 3-month continuing resolution earlier this month. We are going to reach a 2-year budget agreement in October or November that doesn't control spending. We are going to have an omnibus in December, written in secret in our leaders' offices, and then we are going to have another omnibus spending bill, written in secret in our leaders' offices, next December, and we will repeat that cycle over again in 2019 and 2020. How do I know that? Because that is exactly what happened in 2013 and 2015. We will never make the cuts the Budget Control Act called for. We will just pass giant budgets that nobody has read in the last minute in an attempt to avoid the crisis of our own making. My amendment was the last best chance in years to stop this bust-and- boom cycle of budgeting. But what did the Democrats do? They threw it away. They took a perfectly good, bipartisan opportunity to repeal these automatic spending cuts, and they threw it away. You have to ask yourself what goes through Senators' heads when they make such a cynical political calculus. Do they not understand the implications of what they are doing? Do they not see the appalling lack of readiness that is so apparent to everyone else? Did they not see what happened to the USS John McCain? Did they not see what happened to the USS Fitzgerald? Did they not see all those caskets carrying the dead bodies of America's young coming home to families in grief? Do they not see them or do they see them and just not care? What do they think when they hear respected men like Secretary Jim Mattis say: ``No enemy in the field has done more to harm the readiness of our military than sequestration''? What did they think when Secretary Mattis said, after 4 short years of retirement, when he returned to the Department of Defense, ``I have been shocked by what I've seen about our readiness to fight''? Is it just background noise? Does it not register with Democratic Senators? In fact, what must they think when they have been saying the exact same thing for years? The junior Senator from Connecticut said: ``The so-called sequester is another example of governing at its worst.'' The junior Senator from New Jersey said: ``It is blunt, brutal, and blind.'' He gets bonus points for alliteration. The senior Senator from Virginia: ``Sequestration is stupidity on steroids.'' I could make that claim about a lot of things that have been said in this Chamber. The senior Senator from Washington: ``We need to replace sequestration as quickly as possible''; although, apparently, not if it requires a vote on the Cotton amendment. The junior Senator from Minnesota: ``There are a lot of people suffering needlessly because of the sequester.'' That is not a joke, even coming from him. I guess all of these cries of anguish are falling on deaf ears. The senior Senator from New Hampshire: ``The blind cuts of sequestration are not the right approach,'' but by all means, let's keep them in place rather than vote on the Cotton amendment. The senior Senator from Connecticut: ``The safety and strength of our Nation also requires that Congress eliminate the rightly maligned sequestration straightjacket for all Federal programs''--maligned, yet not repealed. My favorite is by the senior Senator from Rhode Island, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee: ``Instead of dodging fiscal responsibility, Republicans need to help end sequestration and get back to a normal budget process.'' Republicans gave you a perfect example with which to do that, sir, and you turned it down. That is what this amendment would have done, but now we will not have a single dime more for the military. We will not give a dime more to FEMA or to the National Weather Service or to NOAA or to NASA or what have you. We will not give one penny more to all of those domestic priorities that the Democrats claim to care about. It turns out that they must not care that much about them or maybe I am being too harsh. Maybe they do like them a lot. They like using them to gin up political support because, when the time came for them to actually put their money where their mouths were, they walked away. The Democrats will tell you that they oppose this amendment because it will not repeal the automatic sequester of mandatory spending. Don't give me that. That is nonsense. That is pure pretext. The automatic sequester consists of a small, almost trivial number of cuts, and it would not have affected one penny--not one penny--of Social Security or Medicare or veterans' benefits. Here is what is most important. Every single Democratic Senator has voted to extend that mandatory sequester into the foreseeable future. So, far from thinking it is a problem, they have voted to extend its life. Hey, how about I strike a new deal? Here is my offer. I will support your hiding behind procedural niceties, hiding in your cloakroom, and not voting on my amendment, if you will agree to do one thing--to go home, in person, to your military bases that are in your home States and explain to the men and women of our Armed Forces, face-to-face, why you could not bring yourselves not just to repeal these spending cuts but not even to be tough enough to take a vote one way or the other. The Democratic leader can go to New York and tell the men and women of the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum. The Democratic whip can go to the Naval Station Great Lakes. The senior Senator from Rhode Island--the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee--can go to the Naval War College. The senior Senator from Missouri can go to the 131st Bomb Wing. The junior Senator from New York can go to the soldiers at Fort Drum as well. The senior Senator from New Hampshire can go to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. The junior Senator from Hawaii can go to the dozen different military bases in Hawaii, while the senior Senator from Florida can go to 20 different military installations in his State. The senior Senator from Connecticut can go to the Groton submarine base. The senior Senator from Indiana can go to AM General in South Bend, whose manufacturing he always touts for political purposes. The junior Senator from Virginia can go to Norfolk or the Pentagon or Fort Myer or to any one of the numerous bases in Virginia. The junior Senator from Maine can go to Bath Iron Works. The junior Senator from New Mexico can go to the Kirtland and Cannon Air Force Bases. The junior Senator from Michigan can go to General Dynamics, outside Detroit. Also, the senior Senator from Massachusetts could shake hands with all 115,563 of the people in her State whose jobs are directly tied to defending our Nation. Every one of those Democrats who sits on the Armed Services Committee and has claimed to want to stop these automatic spending cuts can go home and tell the men and women in uniform in his State that he had a chance to vote on it and that he was too cowardly to even put his name on the rolls. He can look at all of these Americans in the eye and say: Sorry, just politics--hope you understand. That is all this is. It is politics of the lowest kind. In maneuvering, posturing, and posing, they are caving to the demands of the Democratic leader simply because he wants more leverage for more pork-barrel spending when we had a budget deal that was negotiated in secret in December. He twisted their arms, and they screamed like little kids. They are putting politics ahead of our troops. They are holding our troops hostage to politics solely because their leader wants them to. If they were not, they would allow a vote on this amendment. They would vote aye. They would vote aye eagerly, and they would vote aye enthusiastically, but they cannot even do that. They cannot even put their names down as a yes or a no on something that they have all said that they have supported for years. They just hide behind procedure. They hide in their cloakroom. They hide from the voters. They hide in the back corridors and hallways of this building. They hide to save their own skin. They hide because they are ashamed, and they sure as hell should be ashamed.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues and all Arkansans in support of and in prayers for the people of Southeast Texas and all of the victims of Hurricane Harvey. I also want to express our thanks on behalf of a grateful nation. All of you reminded us of the American spirit at a time when we needed it pretty badly. August was not an easy month for our country. First, in Charlottesville, then in Berkeley, we saw some pretty disgusting things--racism, anarchism, mob violence. If all you knew about America was what you saw on cable news and social media, you might think it was disintegrating into two armed camps of Communists and neo-Nazis. Images reminiscent of dark days in the last century appeared on our screens-- torchlight marches, black-masked thugs, political violence in the streets, beatings, and even a murder--but none of these contemptible people represent America, certainly not what is best about America. They cannot even begin to understand what makes this country great because this country's destiny was always to be more than a new battleground for old hatreds. It was meant to be a mighty fortress for the rights of all Americans. Our destiny is to be the home of mankind's aspiration for freedom, not the twisted delusions of grandeur of pathetic losers. The vast majority of Americans--whatever color, faith, age, or region--celebrate this creed, and they welcome this destiny. That is exactly why we should not amplify irrelevant, fringe voices. It creates the illusion that a trivial, impotent minority is, in fact, a large and powerful movement against the dictates of common sense and experience. To my knowledge, I have never met a neo-Nazi, a White supremacist, or a leftwing anarchist, nor have the Arkansans with whom I spoke in the last month, but while watching TV or surfing the web in the last month, you would think they number in the tens of millions. The drive for ratings and clicks seemed to leave a lot of Americans wondering, Is this America? Is this whom we have become? Then Hurricane Harvey made landfall. The stories and the images that followed, once again, proved the old maxim: Adversity does not teach character; it reveals character. What it revealed is an American spirit as strong, as brave, and as loving as ever. Law enforcement and other first responders performed bravely and skillfully, as always, but what was striking was how ordinary citizens answered the call to duty. There was Jim McIngvale, better known as Mattress Mack. Anyone who has ever lived in Houston knows that you cannot watch TV without seeing a Mattress Mack commercial, but Mack was not selling mattresses that day--he was saving families. He turned two furniture stores into relief centers and opened his doors to anyone who sought shelter. Soon, he had 400 people at each store, sleeping on recliners, sofas, love seats--you name it. He gave out his personal cell number for people to call for help. If they could not reach his store because of the flooding, he sent his delivery trucks to go get them. When asked about his generosity, Mattress Mack replied: ``I'm a big believer that it's better to give than to take.'' But not everyone had a Mattress Mack to go to. Some people had to call their local Chick-fil-As. Jeffrey Urban went to work just to make sure that everything was all right when he noticed a familiar phone number flashing across the caller ID. It was J.C. Spencer, a regular customer, who called that morning to place a once-in-a-lifetime order: two grilled chicken burritos with extra egg--and a boat. Urban called the owner, Cindy Smith, who sent her husband with his boat to the Spencers' home, but there was not enough room in the boat for both of them and their possessions. Luckily, two heroes on jet skis arrived-- Keith Christensen and Winston Savice, Jr. When J.C. took a photo of his wife Karen sitting atop a jet ski while Winston sped her to safety, an internet sensation was born. After weeks of our living rooms being filled with the sounds and imagery of hatred, we were suddenly overcome by stories of bravery and self-sacrifice. There was local reporter Brandi Smith, who flagged down a rescue crew to help a truckdriver who was trapped in his vehicle. There was Houston SWAT Officer Daryl Hudeck, who carried a young mother, Catherine Pham, and her 13-month-old son Aiden to dry land. There was Catholic priest David Bergeron, who kayaked around his neighborhood and offered to say Mass for anyone in town. Then there was an unknown man from Texas City, who said, when asked what he was doing with his boat under a flooded underpass, that he and his friends were there to save some lives. So many of these images have already become iconic: Sheriff's Deputy Rick Johnson carrying two children through the floodwaters and the Cajun Navy from Louisiana being lined up like soldiers on a highway, as far as the eye could see, readying for battle. Yet perhaps the most telling image of all was the human chain. When Andrea Smith went into labor in her flooded apartment, her neighbors formed a human chain to help her reach a dump truck that had come to take her to the hospital. There was no pride of place, no rank, no distinction--just humble, selfless Americans who joined hands to help a neighbor in time of need. You could say that human chain was a symbol because, when you step back and soak it all in, you realize this is America, that this is who we are as a nation, not those ideological zealots, not racists and Communists. Their blinded eyes cannot see the dignity and love in that unbroken human chain. We have never lost this spirit of America, but we do occasionally lose sight of it, which is why we ought to pay tribute to these normal, public-spirited Americans--the people in that human chain, the people who heeded the call, who put their stranded countrymen first. They do not mistake malice for power, and they understand that the greatest power of all is love. They are an inspiration to all of us in this Chamber and, indeed, to all the world. They are the reason we can look to Houston, a city much embattled though not embittered, and take pride in what we see--not human devastation but human valor. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, we lost another great American this month with the passing of Arthur J. Jackson. He received the Medal of Honor in 1945 for his service in the Pacific theater of World War II. His name may not be as familiar as it once was. In retirement, he lived a quiet life. I didn't want to let his death pass without paying tribute to him, his family, and the extraordinary acts of courage with which he defended our country. Although, to be sure, ``extraordinary'' doesn't really describe the half of it. It was September 1944, and Private Jackson, a 19-year-old Ohio native, was serving with the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division on the island of Peleliu. Their mission sounded simple enough: Take the island as quickly as possible, inch ever closer to retaking the Philippines, and ultimately defeat Japan. Simple it wasn't. His platoon was hailed by a steady stream of fire from a heavily fortified position. To charge forward would be to march toward certain death, and that is exactly what he did. He attacked a pillbox, holding about 35 enemy soldiers, and as his Medal of Honor citation reads, ``[P]ouring his automatic fire into the opening of the fixed installation to trap the occupying troops, he hurled white phosphorus grenades and explosive charges brought up by a fellow Marine, demolishing the pillbox and killing all of the enemy.'' The enemy fire continued unabated, his cover was light at best, and yet Private Jackson proceeded to storm one position after another-- wiping out a total of 12 pillboxes and 50 enemy soldiers. It was a stunning act of bravery. I can only imagine the pride of President Truman when he pinned the Medal of Honor on Private Jackson's uniform. I can only imagine the awe of his fellow Americans as they showered him with ticker tape in a New York City parade to celebrate. Yes, Arthur Jackson was one of the greats, and like with many great men, his career had a somewhat tragic ending. After a stint in the Army, he rejoined the Marines and was stationed at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in September 1961. It was only months after the Bay of Pigs and just over a year from the Cuban Missile Crisis. Tensions were high; suspicions were too. On one night, then-Captain Jackson discovered a Cuban busdriver in a restricted part of the base. He wasn't supposed to be there, nor was he authorized to be there. The man had been identified as a spy for Fidel Castro's regime but was allowed to keep his job for the time being. Captain Jackson and a fellow officer escorted the man to a back gate to see him off the premises, only to discover the gate was locked. While the other officers went off to find tools, Captain Jackson pried the lock open, and, suddenly, the man lunged at him, aiming for a sidearm. Captain Jackson fired back in self-defense and killed the man on the spot. Instead of reporting the man's death, however, he and some of his fellow Marines buried the body on the base. Many decades later, he told a newspaper columnist he feared, if he reported the death, he would be tried in a Cuban court and possibly tortured. He had hoped no one would find out, but word got out, and he was forced to leave the Marine Corps. He ended life as a mail carrier in California. It was a disappointing end to an until-then brilliant career. This was a man who loved his country, who put everything on the line to defend it, and if one night that love blinded his judgment, it only shows the intensity of his commitment. Arthur Jackson went on to work for the Veterans' Administration in San Francisco before moving to Boise, ID, in 1973. He lived out the remainder of his life there, where he was beloved by the community. As a neighbor of his put it, ``He flies the U.S. flag and the Marine Corps flag every day. It bothers him if someone flies a dirty or tattered flag. He tells them to take it down and replace it.'' A little thing with a big meaning: Arthur Jackson showed as much love for the flag as he did for our country, and now we lost him to the ages. We still have his memory, his example, his stories of derring-do, which will inspire future generations of Americans for decades to come.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I yield back all time.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks before the vote.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly conference meetings and the time during the recess count postcloture.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, last year, a woman named Carol Denise Richardson was released from Federal prison after President Obama granted her clemency. She had been serving a life sentence for possessing and intending to distribute 50 or more grams of cocaine, on top of having an already lengthy criminal record. She had not done anything specifically violent, so, theoretically, we should have been able to release her early and see good results, at least according to the advocates of criminal leniency. Unfortunately, nothing good has come from this decision. Now, less than a year later, Carol Richardson is going back to prison. As part of her release, she was put on a 10-year probation, which meant she had to check in regularly with her probation officers, but she did not. She did not tell them she had left her job. She did not tell them she had moved. She did not even tell them she had been arrested. Her latest offense, I should say, falls somewhere short of heinous. She was arrested in Pasadena, TX, for stealing $60 worth of laundry detergent so she could buy drugs. From everything I have read in the news, it seems clear that Carol Richardson is not a serious, violent menace to society, but it is also clear she was not prepared to reenter society. She still had not kicked her drug habit. She still could not keep and hold a steady job. She still could not meet the most basic requirements of citizenship and basic adulthood. But the real question is, Why would she be ready? Why would we expect that of her? She never went through the rehab that could have given her a second chance at life. Instead we just threw her in the deep end and watched her sink. That is why I think this story is worth mentioning, because I believe we should give pause to every advocate of criminal leniency. They like to argue that taking people out of prison both heals communities and saves money. But who was better off once Carol Richardson was released? Not her community; she committed a crime within months. Not the taxpayers; they are still paying for prison costs. And here is the thing: Neither was she. She is back in prison yet again. But, sometimes, the consequences are worse than this sad story. They are horrifying. Last year, a man named Wendell Callahan brutally killed his ex-girlfriend and her two young daughters. A frantic 911 call from the scene said that the two girls' throats had been slit. These murders were an atrocity, and they were completely avoidable. Wendell Callahan walked out of Federal prison in August of 2014 after his sentence had been reduced in accordance with the provisions of sentencing guidelines made by the Sentencing Commission. Callahan's original sentence should have kept him in jail until 2018. If he had been in jail instead of on the streets, a young family would be alive today. What the Richardson case, on one hand, and the Callahan case, on the other hand, show us are two things: First, if we are going to reform the criminal justice system, we shouldn't focus on merely reducing sentences. That doesn't do all that much to help our society. Instead, we should focus on rehabilitating people while they are in prison, whatever the length of their sentence. They need serious help if they can ever hope to redeem themselves and, once they are out of jail, stay out for good. And we should give them that help, not only because it is good for them--though it is--but because it is good for us as a society. This is why I support real reform that will make our prisons safer for inmates and correction officers alike and take real steps to help inmates leave their lives of crime behind once and for all. The second lesson is this: We need to know far more than we do now about how many people we release early from prison go back to a life of crime. What types of crimes do they commit? How many murders? How many robberies? How many drug arrests? Those numbers can be small or they can be large, but we need to know them to understand the full scope of our problem. And having that information will help the President decide each case as he considers when and how to use his pardon power. But, today, the Federal Government doesn't even compile these data. That is why I, along with Senators Hatch, Sessions, and Perdue, introduced a bill last year to require that the government collect and report on these numbers. Unfortunately, the bill did not pass into law. So I want to announce today that I intend to reintroduce the bill with a renewed sense of urgency. This is just one story, after all. We don't know how many people granted clemency are returning to crime. But that is all the more reason to start collecting more data. We need to thoroughly evaluate cold, hard evidence before we make any sweeping changes to our criminal laws. Carol Richardson's story should warn us of the perils of letting ideology get the better of common sense. We owe it to our neighbors to keep their families safe, and we owe it to the Carol Richardsons of the world to give them a real and honest chance at life once they complete their sentence. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I want to add to the voice of so many Senators today who expressed their prayers and concerns for the five Americans who were wounded today in a terrible shooting in Alexandria, VA: Steve Scalise, a friend of mine from the House of Representatives, someone who took a bet on me early in my first campaign, as a neighboring State, aspiring young candidate, and with whom I served for 2 years; Matt Mika, who represents the Tyson Foods, a great Arkansas institution, and whom I have known since the beginning of my days of politics; Zack Barth, a young House staffer; and Crystal Griner and David Bailey, two brave Capitol police officers who were on the scene. We don't yet know all of the details of what happened this morning. Here is what we do know: If it weren't for the bravery of those Capitol police officers--not just Crystal and David but the others present-- there might have been many more killed. We all sit here safely engaged in the great debates of American democracy--whether we are a Senator or whether we are Americans watching it--because there are brave men and women literally standing guard at our doors with guns, willing to put their lives on the line to defend all of us. I want to join so many other Senators today to express my gratitude to the Capitol Police, not just for protecting us--535 elected Members of Congress--but also for protecting all of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who come here every single day of the year to see their Congress and their Representatives doing the people's business. Honoring Private First Class Larry Roberts Mr. President, speaking of men who guard us with guns, I want to turn our attention to Arlington National Cemetery. After 74 years, an American patriot has finally come home. PFC Larry Roberts, of Damascus, AK, was only 18 years old at the time of his final mission. It was November 1943--the height of World War II. Private Roberts had been assigned to the Special Weapons Group, 2nd Defense Battalion, Fleet Marine Force. U.S. forces were making their way across the Pacific, island by island. That month, those marines landed on tiny Betio in the Tarawa Atoll of the Gilbert Islands. The mission? Take the island and advance on to Tokyo and victory. Private Roberts and his battle buddies performed brilliantly, but the fighting was fierce. One thousand marines and sailors were killed and 2,000 were wounded. The Japanese fought to the last man standing. In the end we won but at steep cost. Private Roberts, like so many others, was killed on November 25, 1943. In the 2 years after the war, the 604th Quartermaster Graves Registration Company tried to recover all of the remains on the battlefield, but they never found any sign of Private Roberts. In 1949, a military review board declared his remains nonrecoverable. Just 2 years ago, the nonprofit History Flight discovered an until- then unknown burial site on the island and recovered remains of 35 marines who had died there. It took 2 years, but thanks to the amazing work of the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, we were able to identify the remains of Private First Class Roberts. It was heartening news, especially to the Roberts family. I am happy to say he has been laid to rest on American soil on our most hallowed ground--Arlington National Cemetery. I had the honor of attending his funeral earlier today. Now he rests amid the rolling green hills and the ghostly white crosses of that cemetery. I think it is more than fitting because his burial there is a symbol of what this one person, this young man so far away from home, did for our country. He gave his all-too-brief life in service to something greater than himself. He gave his life and service to his country. He gave all his tomorrows so you could have today and tomorrow. I wanted to recognize him and his service on the Senate floor tonight. Standing here, I think of the words of the great British Parliamentarian William Gladstone: ``Show me the manner in which a nation cares for its dead and I will measure with mathematical exactness the tender mercies of its people, their respect for the laws of the land, and their loyalty to high ideals.'' To the men and women of our Armed Forces, I want you to know that if you are ever separated, captured, missing, or killed in action, our country will spare no expense and will suffer any burden to bring you back too. PFC Larry Roberts died fighting for that highest ideal, that of freedom. He would have been 92 years old this year. It is because of him and his bravery and millions of Americans like him that our country is still here, still standing, still free, as it has been for 241 years. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today, I speak in favor of the Iran sanctions bill. I am an original cosponsor of the bill, so it should come as no surprise that I support it. My only concern is that we did not pass it sooner. As I stand here today, I cannot help but feel that this moment highlights the folly of the last 8 years of President Obama's foreign policy. For 8 years, President Obama did everything he could to curry favor with the Ayatollahs in Tehran. He ignored popular protests, known as the Green Movement, and the thousands of Iranians who cried out for something more than sham elections. He lectured our Gulf Arab allies on the need to ``share'' the Middle East with their sworn enemy in some kind of cold peace. He insisted on putting daylight between us and our friend Israel. He dallied and dithered as the regime helped its client Bashar al-Assad help tear apart his own country in a brutal civil war. Most infamously, he traded away billions of dollars in sanctions relief for a flimsy, one-sided nuclear deal--a deal that did not prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon so much as ultimately guarantee it in just a few years. What do we have to show for all of this? What did we get for looking the other way for 8 years? Not a more reasonable Iran, not a more open, tolerant, democratic Iran, not a friendlier Iran, but an emboldened Iran--one that continues to launch ballistic missiles in willful defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions. For everything we have done to mollify the ayatollahs and their sensitivities, they have gone out of their way to inflame ours. What did President Obama do? Nothing but appease them. But we should not lay these failures solely on the last President's doorstep, because he represents a mindset that is too widely shared. It is one that sees Iran's obvious imperial aggression in the Middle East and yet still considers America the aggressor. It is one that tries to compartmentalize and haggle with a regime whose leaders shout ``death to Israel'' and ``death to America'' virtually every Friday. It is one that refuses to call a spade a spade and say to the Ayatollahs that enough is enough. But today we are changing course--and not a moment too soon. This legislation will finally hold the regime and Tehran accountable for their brazen attempts to bully their neighbors and assert supremacy throughout the Middle East. It will put heavy sanctions on anyone who is involved in helping Iran develop ballistic missiles, circumvent our arms embargo, or spread terrorism throughout the world. I know there are those who consider this kind of a move to be provocative, but I would say that it is the Iranian regime's aggression that has been provocative. All of these sanctioned activities are things that the regime and Tehran should not be doing in the first place. I do not think it is provocative to hold our enemies to the same standards as our friends. I do not think it is unreasonable to do what we can to protect our friends and ourselves from Iranian-supported terrorism and from a regime that is responsible for killing hundreds of American troops in the Middle East. Instead, I think it is long overdue. Today, I am glad to see the Senate finally prepared to rectify these grave mistakes. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I wish to add my support this morning for Courtney Elwood as the next general counsel of the CIA--not that she really needs it. In her many years of public service and private practice, Courtney has earned the esteem of her colleagues across both parties and two administrations. David Kris, an Obama appointee, calls her ``a first-class lawyer.'' Ben Powell, a Bush appointee, calls her ``one of the finest lawyers of her generation.'' Caroline Krass, another Obama appointee, calls her ``an excellent choice.'' And Wan Kim, another Bush appointee, says she is ``careful, brilliant, and highly accomplished.'' In other words, you don't need me to tell you Courtney Elwood is a first-rate attorney. In fact, you don't need anyone to tell you that because her accomplishments speak for themselves. She graduated from Yale Law School in 1994 and went on to clerk for both Judge Mike Luttig on the Fourth Circuit and then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist at the Supreme Court. After spending some time in private practice, she worked for 6 years in the George W. Bush administration, rising from associate counsel to the President, to deputy counsel to the Vice President, to Deputy Chief of Staff and Counselor to the Attorney General. We are not talking about a rookie lawyer who is inexperienced in the ways of Washington or in the corridors of power. Her commitment to the law is unquestioned and unquestionable. She is just the person we need for this position. The general counsel of the CIA will help Director Pompeo navigate the many twists and turns of the thorny legal terrain as our intelligence community defends our country against a wide range of threats: terrorism, cyber warfare, and good, old-fashioned espionage. We need people of the highest caliber serving at our national security agencies, and there is broad agreement that Courtney Elwood fits the bill. I am happy to support her nomination, and I thank her and her family for answering the call to serve once again. (The remarks of Mr. Cotton pertaining to the introduction of S. 1297 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, the attacks in London last weekend exposed in a matter of minutes just how vulnerable free societies truly are. All it takes is a van or a knife and an unsuspecting bystander to turn a fun night out on the town into a horrific nightmare. Of course, we shouldn't need any reminders, but let me give one yet again: We are at war with Islamic extremists. We have been for years, and I am sorry to say that there is no end in sight. It is easy to forget this as we go about our daily lives, but our enemies have not, and they will not. They have never taken their eyes off the ultimate target, either--the United States. Yes, we are at war with a vicious and unyielding foe, and just as our enemy can attack us with the simplest of everyday tools, the strongest shield we have in our defense is just as basic: It is the intelligence--information--of knowing who is talking to whom about what, where, when, and why. After the 9/11 attacks, our national security agencies developed cutting-edge programs that allow us to figure out what the bad guys are up to and stop them before they can perpetrate such heinous attacks. Very often, the intelligence they have collected has made the difference between life and death for American citizens. But one of those programs is going to sunset later this year. I am talking about section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This is a program that collects information about foreign persons on foreign soil and, as a result, saves American lives. Unfortunately, this and other programs were distorted in the public debate by a traitor, a disgruntled ex-NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, who now sits in the warm embrace of Russian intelligence services. Ever since his very damaging leak of classified material many years back, many Americans have grown doubtful about these programs and about section 702 in particular, which is why it bears repeating just what section 702 does. It allows our national security agencies to collect internet or phone communications from a source within the United States, like an internet service provider, but only under a very specific set of conditions. It cannot target American citizens--not even lawful permanent residents. It can't even target foreigners communicating on U.S. soil. It can target only people discussing a specific list of topics preapproved by the FISA court, which is made up of Federal judges with life tenure. We are not talking about what they are picking up at the grocery store or when they are checking in on the kids. We are talking about things like weapons of mass destruction. It is true that this program occasionally does collect information about American citizens. That will be true of any attempt to stop any kind of homegrown terrorism. But if you are concerned about protecting Americans' privacy rights, then you should support extending 702. It puts in place a host of privacy protections to scrub raw intelligence of any unnecessary identifying information. To allow this program to expire on December 31 would hurt both our national security and our privacy rights. That is why today I am introducing a bill that would reauthorize section 702 permanently, as is, with no changes. We can't tie the hands of our national security officials at the precise moment that our enemies are taking the gloves off around the world. Terrorists don't plan to sunset their threats to our way of life, so why should our important counterterrorism tools sunset? I am glad to say that my legislation has the support of every Republican Senator on the Intelligence Committee, and I look forward to earning the support of my colleagues in the weeks ahead because we can't afford to let this program expire. It is not too much and it is not an exaggeration to say that American lives depend on section 702.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, the attacks in London last weekend exposed in a matter of minutes just how vulnerable free societies truly are. All it takes is a van or a knife and an unsuspecting bystander to turn a fun night out on the town into a horrific nightmare. Of course, we shouldn't need any reminders, but let me give one yet again: We are at war with Islamic extremists. We have been for years, and I am sorry to say that there is no end in sight. It is easy to forget this as we go about our daily lives, but our enemies have not, and they will not. They have never taken their eyes off the ultimate target, either--the United States. Yes, we are at war with a vicious and unyielding foe, and just as our enemy can attack us with the simplest of everyday tools, the strongest shield we have in our defense is just as basic: It is the intelligence--information--of knowing who is talking to whom about what, where, when, and why. After the 9/11 attacks, our national security agencies developed cutting-edge programs that allow us to figure out what the bad guys are up to and stop them before they can perpetrate such heinous attacks. Very often, the intelligence they have collected has made the difference between life and death for American citizens. But one of those programs is going to sunset later this year. I am talking about section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This is a program that collects information about foreign persons on foreign soil and, as a result, saves American lives. Unfortunately, this and other programs were distorted in the public debate by a traitor, a disgruntled ex-NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, who now sits in the warm embrace of Russian intelligence services. Ever since his very damaging leak of classified material many years back, many Americans have grown doubtful about these programs and about section 702 in particular, which is why it bears repeating just what section 702 does. It allows our national security agencies to collect internet or phone communications from a source within the United States, like an internet service provider, but only under a very specific set of conditions. It cannot target American citizens--not even lawful permanent residents. It can't even target foreigners communicating on U.S. soil. It can target only people discussing a specific list of topics preapproved by the FISA court, which is made up of Federal judges with life tenure. We are not talking about what they are picking up at the grocery store or when they are checking in on the kids. We are talking about things like weapons of mass destruction. It is true that this program occasionally does collect information about American citizens. That will be true of any attempt to stop any kind of homegrown terrorism. But if you are concerned about protecting Americans' privacy rights, then you should support extending 702. It puts in place a host of privacy protections to scrub raw intelligence of any unnecessary identifying information. To allow this program to expire on December 31 would hurt both our national security and our privacy rights. That is why today I am introducing a bill that would reauthorize section 702 permanently, as is, with no changes. We can't tie the hands of our national security officials at the precise moment that our enemies are taking the gloves off around the world. Terrorists don't plan to sunset their threats to our way of life, so why should our important counterterrorism tools sunset? I am glad to say that my legislation has the support of every Republican Senator on the Intelligence Committee, and I look forward to earning the support of my colleagues in the weeks ahead because we can't afford to let this program expire. It is not too much and it is not an exaggeration to say that American lives depend on section 702.