Tom Cotton

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, reserving the right to object, first, I want to express my appreciation for the work Senator Grassley, Senator Whitehouse, and others have done in crafting the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. I agree with my colleagues--the bill improves the way we handle juvenile offenders. The bill properly focuses on rehabilitation and services that seek to turn juveniles away from crime and provide help to at-risk youth. I support the vast majority of the bill, and I hope it ultimately passes into law. However, I would like to take more time to discuss one specific provision of the bill relating to juvenile status offenders and secure confinement. Secure confinement is not and in my opinion should not be the preferred option for instances of alcohol possession, truancy, or other status offenses. In fact, current law bars judges from imposing secure confinement for initial status offenses. But I am concerned that the bill eliminates completely the ability for judges to order secure confinement for a short time in instances where a status offender flagrantly violates the judge's prior order for him to, say, enter into rehabilitation, counseling, or take part in other treatment services. In such narrow circumstances, it may be prudent to allow judges--often in consultation with the parents and attorneys involved--to have secure confinement as a means to enforce their own orders and to ensure that the juvenile receives the help he needs. Currently, many States are developing an array of options for treating status offenders beyond secure confinement. Yet a majority of States do, in fact, still choose to retain the option for judges to order secure confinement in narrow circumstances. Just last year, my State of Arkansas passed a new juvenile justice bill that sought to expand rehabilitation services for status offenders so the State could reduce the number who were subject to secure confinement, but in my State legislature's judgment, it chose to retain secure confinement as a last-resort option. I don't believe Congress should second-guess this choice. I have heard from Arkansans on this point, and I have raised it with the bill's sponsors. A blanket Federal mandate that bans secure confinement in each and every circumstance may not be the best way forward. I submit we should continue to entrust States with the decision to retain it as a last- resort option and to allow judges on a case-by-case basis to use their discretion about the best course to enforce their prior orders. Therefore, with hopes we can resolve the issue promptly and pass this legislation, I regretfully object.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I share in the mutual admiration for the Senator from Iowa, and I appreciate his work on this and many other pieces of legislation. I commit to work with both him and the Senator from Rhode Island to try to resolve this as promptly as possible so we can move this piece of legislation forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I understand the point the Senator from Rhode Island makes. I would say it poses a Hobson's choice for many States. I would also make note of his earlier comment about a court's inherent authority to enforce its previous order using its inherent power of contempt, which would include the ability to order secure confinement for a short period of time. Perhaps we can work together to include a proviso in the bill that would recognize that inherent authority, and this bill would not remove that inherent authority on the condition of accepting the grant.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. I do modify my request.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I rise today in support not only of the nomination of Scot Marciel to be our Ambassador to Burma but to celebrate the remarkable change Burma is undergoing. I recently traveled to Burma, leading a congressional delegation hosted by our Embassy there, Ambassador Derek Mitchell, and Deputy Chief of Mission Kristen Bauer. Burma has undergone a remarkable transition. After 50 years of a brutal military dictatorship, Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and her party won a landslide election in November. The military is still entrenched in power, but gradual change is occurring, in part thanks to U.S. policies. It is change we should continue to support. Sitting at the intersection of China and India, Burma is a geostrategically critical country. Sitting, as it does, between the crossroads of Southeast Asia and the Middle East, it is critical to the War on Terror. Burma can be a potent trading partner because of its largely untapped natural resources and is a shining example of the strategic impact of U.S. moral leadership in the world. Those elections were not the end of the work, though; they are only the beginning of the work. The military still has a deep role in the Constitution. The National League for Democracy needs to transition from an opposition party to a governing party. Burma must address its internal ethnic conflicts, and, like most countries, it needs to address corruption and economic reforms as well. Our mission team in Rangoon is working on all these matters and more. I know that Ambassador Marciel looks forward to leading that team and continuing to strengthen the U.S.-Burma relationship. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 2 minutes.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act that has been voted out of the Judiciary Committee. There is much debate about the wisdom of this bill. That is, like most bills we discuss in this Chamber, a judgment call. But there cannot be debate over the facts of this bill. We have to be very clear on what this bill, by its own text, is designed to do. Proponents of the bill often invoke four phrases to describe the felons to be released under the terms of the bill: ``first-time,'' ``nonviolent,'' ``low-level,'' ``drug possession'' offenders. Yet none of these four terms is accurate. By its text, the bill will apply sentence reductions not to first- time offenders but to repeat offenders--some many times over. These are felons who have made the conscious choice to commit crimes over and over. By its text, the bill will not just apply to so-called ``nonviolent offenders'' but to thousands of violent felons and armed career criminals who have used firearms in the course of their drug felonies or crimes of violence. By its text, the bill will reduce sentences not for those convicted of simple possession but for major drug traffickers--ones who deal in hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of heroin and thousands of pounds of marijuana. And let's be clear. Drug trafficking is not nonviolent, as the bill's proponents often claim. It is built on an entire edifice of violence, stretching from the narcoterrorists of South America to the drug-deal enforcers on our city streets. If you think dealing drugs on a street corner while armed with a gun is a nonviolent offense, you probably live in a rich suburb or a gated community. By its text, this bill will apply to felons convicted as juveniles of murder, rape, assault, and other crimes for which they were justly tried as adults. By its text, this bill will apply to repeat felons whose past crimes include kidnapping, carjacking, armed robbery, and other violent crimes. By its text, this bill will make eligible for early release into America's communities thousands of drug traffickers and other violent felons. And when we catch such criminals going forward, we will not be able to keep them locked up for the same sentences. It has been reported that the bill's sponsors are preparing to release a revised bill, one that would address some of the many shortcomings. Regarding this news, I thank the sponsors for acknowledging that the bill as passed by committee does, in fact, apply to serious drug traffickers and other violent felons. I look forward to evaluating the new legislative text, and I hope it addresses these problems. Until then, though, we can only examine more closely the bill as passed by the committee and its consequences. Make no mistake, the consequences of this bill are all too predictable. Sadly, more than half of released prisoners are rearrested within 1 year, and 77 percent are rearrested within 5 years. We can be sure, then, that we will see more crimes committed by those who might be released early--thanks to this bill. That is indisputable. Those new crimes will wreak havoc on the citizens, families, and communities in each of our States. This risk is not hypothetical. Sterile statistics do not adequately convey the severity of the threat of mass recidivism. Last month in Columbus, OH, a man named Wendell Callahan brutally killed his ex- girlfriend and her two young daughters. In what was described as a ``stabbing rampage,'' Callahan murdered Erveena Hammonds, her 10-year- old daughter Anaesia, and Anaesia's little sister, 7-year-old Breya. These murders were an atrocity, and they were completely avoidable. Wendell Callahan walked out of Federal prison in August 2014, but his 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 still be alive today. Callahan walked out of jail early because the U.S. Sentencing Commission reduced sentences retroactively for hardened violent criminals like him. The Commission first reduced sentencing guidelines in 2007. It did so again in 2010 and again in 2014. That is three major systemic sentencing reductions in the span of a mere 7 years. The result is that 46,000 Federal convicts will walk from jail early. Wendell Callahan was one among that 46,000. There will be many more like him. While we pray against all odds that none of them go on to commit a triple-murder like Wendell Callahan did--or any other heinous crime--I am afraid our prayers will go unanswered, at least in part. The U.S. Sentencing Commission is an independent judicial agency that provides uniform sentencing guidelines to judges. Congress didn't have a hand in those sentencing reductions, but with the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, the Senate would impose a fourth major sentencing reduction within 8 years--one that is deeper and broader than the reductions imposed by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. This is badly misguided. The Senate would be launching a massive social experiment in criminal leniency without knowing the full consequences of the first three reductions imposed by the Sentencing Commissions. This experiment threatens to undo the historic drops in crime that we have seen over the last 25 years. That drop in crime rate was no accident. It was the result of higher mandatory minimums put in place in the 1980s, coupled with vigilant policing strategies pioneered by scholars like Jim Wilson and practiced by elected leaders like Rudy Giuliani and other American mayors and law enforcement officials. The combination of mandatory minimums and innovative policing is not a haphazard anticrime strategy. It is one that was reached through tough trial-and-error performed at local, State, and, eventually, the Federal levels. It is one that arose from advocacy that originated in the communities and cities that were hardest hit by the drug trade. It is one that has a proven record of success, not in terms of crime rates but in terms of lives saved, families protected, and communities healed. The connection between higher mandatory minimums and lower crime is often lost on those unfamiliar with this history or blinded by ideology. For example, in 1997 the New York Times reported: ``Crime Keeps On Falling, but Prisons Keep On Filling.'' One year later, in 1998, the Times added: ``Prison Population Growing Although Crime Rate Drops.'' In 2004 the Times reiterated yet again, just for good measure: ``Despite Drop In Crime, An Increase In Inmates.'' You can't make this stuff up, yet it is real and appears to be all too soon forgotten. Like most conservative achievements, the reduction in crime over the past generation is built on the hard lessons of experience. We should not lightly abandon the criminal justice wisdom accumulated over decades to the passing fashions of current thinking. We should not blithely move from a proven strategy of accountability and vigilance to an experimental theory of leniency. We should not trade away concrete, hard-won gains when the results may be devastating to American communities. The Senate and the American people need to consider any change to our sentencing laws with full information. We need to know if this sentencing leniency bill will return us closer to the days of the 1970s and 1980s, when our cities were besieged by the drug trade and whole communities were being rotted out as a result. We need to debate sentencing changes with all the data available to us, and we need to do this with eyes wide open. That is why today, together with Senators Hatch, Sessions, and Perdue, I am introducing the Criminal Consequences of Early Release Act. This is a simple but very needed bill. It will require the Federal Government to report on the recidivism rates of the 46,000 Federal inmates to be released early under the Sentencing Commission's reductions, and it will require the same reporting for any prisoners released early under any future reductions mandated by Congress. The report required by this bill will make clear how many crimes are being committed by released felons who would otherwise still be in prison. It will make clear what types of crimes--from drug trafficking to assault to robbery to murder--are being committed by these felons. It will make clear in which States these crimes are occurring. Currently this type of data is extremely hard to compile. It is not reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and any information we do have comes mostly through anecdotes and sporadic media reports. Full information on the criminal consequences of early release must be published in detail. Before voting on any bill to reduce sentences, Senators need to understand fully the criminal consequences of prior sentence reductions. To hold Senators accountable for their votes, the American people need to understand how their communities are being affected. When the Federal Government decides to release thousands of violent criminals onto the streets, no legislator or official should be able to plead ignorance. If people are being killed, drugs trafficked, property stolen, and children kidnapped by felons who should have been in prison but instead are out on the streets, then the people in our States and communities deserve to know that. I want to be clear. To those who support the Sentencing Reform Corrections Act, we are not in full disagreement. Like you, I oppose jail for first-time drug users with no prior record. It is vanishingly rare for such offenders to be prosecuted and jailed in the Federal system, of course, but it remains true that the better option for them--particularly if they are addicts--would be drug treatment. Like you, I believe that our prisons should not be an anarchic jungle that is a danger to both prisoners and corrections officers. Like you, I believe that those prisoners who will someday complete their sentences and reenter society should be given a chance to rehabilitate and redeem themselves while in prison so they do not commit additional new crimes once they are out of prison. Like you, I do believe there exists a possibility of a manifestly unjust sentence. So I suggest: Let's work on that bill. Let's work on a bill that identifies and addresses all first-time drug possession inmates in the Federal system but keeps drug traffickers and other violent offenders in prison to finish their sentences. Let's improve prison conditions and give prisoners a shot at redemption and a better life while protecting our communities. If you wish, let's work on a bill to speed the consideration of commutation and pardon applications because, if you want to undo manifestly unjust sentences, we can help the President use his constitutional power of pardon and commutation as a precise scalpel to identify and remedy those very rare cases of manifestly unjust sentences. What we should not do is use the blunt instrument of releasing thousands of violent felons and major drug traffickers back onto our streets early. The President has a constitutional power to remedy unjust sentences, but you know what power he doesn't have? The power to bring back to life the victims who are murdered by prisoners released early or sentenced inadequately. In the discussion about the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, there is much talk about legacy, and, in particular, a legacy of President Obama after he leaves office. If considerations of legacy should factor into the debate, I would close with this observation. Legacies are not necessarily positive. They can be negative and deeply tragic. If supporters of this bill and President Obama are wrong, if this grand experiment in criminal leniency goes awry, how many lives will be ruined and how many dead? How much of the anticrime progress of the last generation will be wiped away for the next? Those are the questions we must ask as we consider this bill. If we ask them honestly, soberly, and with full information, we will invariably be led to one conclusion: We should not grant early release to thousands of drug traffickers and other violent criminals nor should we shorten their sentences in the future.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act that has been voted out of the Judiciary Committee. There is much debate about the wisdom of this bill. That is, like most bills we discuss in this Chamber, a judgment call. But there cannot be debate over the facts of this bill. We have to be very clear on what this bill, by its own text, is designed to do. Proponents of the bill often invoke four phrases to describe the felons to be released under the terms of the bill: ``first-time,'' ``nonviolent,'' ``low-level,'' ``drug possession'' offenders. Yet none of these four terms is accurate. By its text, the bill will apply sentence reductions not to first- time offenders but to repeat offenders--some many times over. These are felons who have made the conscious choice to commit crimes over and over. By its text, the bill will not just apply to so-called ``nonviolent offenders'' but to thousands of violent felons and armed career criminals who have used firearms in the course of their drug felonies or crimes of violence. By its text, the bill will reduce sentences not for those convicted of simple possession but for major drug traffickers--ones who deal in hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of heroin and thousands of pounds of marijuana. And let's be clear. Drug trafficking is not nonviolent, as the bill's proponents often claim. It is built on an entire edifice of violence, stretching from the narcoterrorists of South America to the drug-deal enforcers on our city streets. If you think dealing drugs on a street corner while armed with a gun is a nonviolent offense, you probably live in a rich suburb or a gated community. By its text, this bill will apply to felons convicted as juveniles of murder, rape, assault, and other crimes for which they were justly tried as adults. By its text, this bill will apply to repeat felons whose past crimes include kidnapping, carjacking, armed robbery, and other violent crimes. By its text, this bill will make eligible for early release into America's communities thousands of drug traffickers and other violent felons. And when we catch such criminals going forward, we will not be able to keep them locked up for the same sentences. It has been reported that the bill's sponsors are preparing to release a revised bill, one that would address some of the many shortcomings. Regarding this news, I thank the sponsors for acknowledging that the bill as passed by committee does, in fact, apply to serious drug traffickers and other violent felons. I look forward to evaluating the new legislative text, and I hope it addresses these problems. Until then, though, we can only examine more closely the bill as passed by the committee and its consequences. Make no mistake, the consequences of this bill are all too predictable. Sadly, more than half of released prisoners are rearrested within 1 year, and 77 percent are rearrested within 5 years. We can be sure, then, that we will see more crimes committed by those who might be released early--thanks to this bill. That is indisputable. Those new crimes will wreak havoc on the citizens, families, and communities in each of our States. This risk is not hypothetical. Sterile statistics do not adequately convey the severity of the threat of mass recidivism. Last month in Columbus, OH, a man named Wendell Callahan brutally killed his ex- girlfriend and her two young daughters. In what was described as a ``stabbing rampage,'' Callahan murdered Erveena Hammonds, her 10-year- old daughter Anaesia, and Anaesia's little sister, 7-year-old Breya. These murders were an atrocity, and they were completely avoidable. Wendell Callahan walked out of Federal prison in August 2014, but his 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 still be alive today. Callahan walked out of jail early because the U.S. Sentencing Commission reduced sentences retroactively for hardened violent criminals like him. The Commission first reduced sentencing guidelines in 2007. It did so again in 2010 and again in 2014. That is three major systemic sentencing reductions in the span of a mere 7 years. The result is that 46,000 Federal convicts will walk from jail early. Wendell Callahan was one among that 46,000. There will be many more like him. While we pray against all odds that none of them go on to commit a triple-murder like Wendell Callahan did--or any other heinous crime--I am afraid our prayers will go unanswered, at least in part. The U.S. Sentencing Commission is an independent judicial agency that provides uniform sentencing guidelines to judges. Congress didn't have a hand in those sentencing reductions, but with the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, the Senate would impose a fourth major sentencing reduction within 8 years--one that is deeper and broader than the reductions imposed by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. This is badly misguided. The Senate would be launching a massive social experiment in criminal leniency without knowing the full consequences of the first three reductions imposed by the Sentencing Commissions. This experiment threatens to undo the historic drops in crime that we have seen over the last 25 years. That drop in crime rate was no accident. It was the result of higher mandatory minimums put in place in the 1980s, coupled with vigilant policing strategies pioneered by scholars like Jim Wilson and practiced by elected leaders like Rudy Giuliani and other American mayors and law enforcement officials. The combination of mandatory minimums and innovative policing is not a haphazard anticrime strategy. It is one that was reached through tough trial-and-error performed at local, State, and, eventually, the Federal levels. It is one that arose from advocacy that originated in the communities and cities that were hardest hit by the drug trade. It is one that has a proven record of success, not in terms of crime rates but in terms of lives saved, families protected, and communities healed. The connection between higher mandatory minimums and lower crime is often lost on those unfamiliar with this history or blinded by ideology. For example, in 1997 the New York Times reported: ``Crime Keeps On Falling, but Prisons Keep On Filling.'' One year later, in 1998, the Times added: ``Prison Population Growing Although Crime Rate Drops.'' In 2004 the Times reiterated yet again, just for good measure: ``Despite Drop In Crime, An Increase In Inmates.'' You can't make this stuff up, yet it is real and appears to be all too soon forgotten. Like most conservative achievements, the reduction in crime over the past generation is built on the hard lessons of experience. We should not lightly abandon the criminal justice wisdom accumulated over decades to the passing fashions of current thinking. We should not blithely move from a proven strategy of accountability and vigilance to an experimental theory of leniency. We should not trade away concrete, hard-won gains when the results may be devastating to American communities. The Senate and the American people need to consider any change to our sentencing laws with full information. We need to know if this sentencing leniency bill will return us closer to the days of the 1970s and 1980s, when our cities were besieged by the drug trade and whole communities were being rotted out as a result. We need to debate sentencing changes with all the data available to us, and we need to do this with eyes wide open. That is why today, together with Senators Hatch, Sessions, and Perdue, I am introducing the Criminal Consequences of Early Release Act. This is a simple but very needed bill. It will require the Federal Government to report on the recidivism rates of the 46,000 Federal inmates to be released early under the Sentencing Commission's reductions, and it will require the same reporting for any prisoners released early under any future reductions mandated by Congress. The report required by this bill will make clear how many crimes are being committed by released felons who would otherwise still be in prison. It will make clear what types of crimes--from drug trafficking to assault to robbery to murder--are being committed by these felons. It will make clear in which States these crimes are occurring. Currently this type of data is extremely hard to compile. It is not reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and any information we do have comes mostly through anecdotes and sporadic media reports. Full information on the criminal consequences of early release must be published in detail. Before voting on any bill to reduce sentences, Senators need to understand fully the criminal consequences of prior sentence reductions. To hold Senators accountable for their votes, the American people need to understand how their communities are being affected. When the Federal Government decides to release thousands of violent criminals onto the streets, no legislator or official should be able to plead ignorance. If people are being killed, drugs trafficked, property stolen, and children kidnapped by felons who should have been in prison but instead are out on the streets, then the people in our States and communities deserve to know that. I want to be clear. To those who support the Sentencing Reform Corrections Act, we are not in full disagreement. Like you, I oppose jail for first-time drug users with no prior record. It is vanishingly rare for such offenders to be prosecuted and jailed in the Federal system, of course, but it remains true that the better option for them--particularly if they are addicts--would be drug treatment. Like you, I believe that our prisons should not be an anarchic jungle that is a danger to both prisoners and corrections officers. Like you, I believe that those prisoners who will someday complete their sentences and reenter society should be given a chance to rehabilitate and redeem themselves while in prison so they do not commit additional new crimes once they are out of prison. Like you, I do believe there exists a possibility of a manifestly unjust sentence. So I suggest: Let's work on that bill. Let's work on a bill that identifies and addresses all first-time drug possession inmates in the Federal system but keeps drug traffickers and other violent offenders in prison to finish their sentences. Let's improve prison conditions and give prisoners a shot at redemption and a better life while protecting our communities. If you wish, let's work on a bill to speed the consideration of commutation and pardon applications because, if you want to undo manifestly unjust sentences, we can help the President use his constitutional power of pardon and commutation as a precise scalpel to identify and remedy those very rare cases of manifestly unjust sentences. What we should not do is use the blunt instrument of releasing thousands of violent felons and major drug traffickers back onto our streets early. The President has a constitutional power to remedy unjust sentences, but you know what power he doesn't have? The power to bring back to life the victims who are murdered by prisoners released early or sentenced inadequately. In the discussion about the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, there is much talk about legacy, and, in particular, a legacy of President Obama after he leaves office. If considerations of legacy should factor into the debate, I would close with this observation. Legacies are not necessarily positive. They can be negative and deeply tragic. If supporters of this bill and President Obama are wrong, if this grand experiment in criminal leniency goes awry, how many lives will be ruined and how many dead? How much of the anticrime progress of the last generation will be wiped away for the next? Those are the questions we must ask as we consider this bill. If we ask them honestly, soberly, and with full information, we will invariably be led to one conclusion: We should not grant early release to thousands of drug traffickers and other violent criminals nor should we shorten their sentences in the future.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, as National School Choice Week came to a close last week, I want to highlight the important role school choice plays in our education system in Arkansas and across the country. I am the proud graduate of Arkansas's public schools and the son of a public school teacher and principal. Throughout my life, I was blessed with wonderful parents, teachers, and coaches who taught the skills, knowledge, and values needed for success in the workforce. Unfortunately, not all children have the same experience. Dardanelle High School was the right choice for me, but the local public school isn't always the right fit for everyone. Too many children aren't receiving the attention or education they deserve. This is especially true in areas with poor performing schools. But it is not always about the quality of education; sometimes local schools cannot make adequate accommodations for a child's religious beliefs or personal needs. Quite simply, one size fits all isn't the key to success for education. That is why I believe in school choice. Parents--not politicians and bureaucrats--know what is best for their children. We should empower them and ensure they have access to alternatives to the traditional public system. This includes home schooling, charter schools, and private and religious schools. That way, every child will receive the type of education that best fits their learning style. To countless families across America, school choice means accessing the best possible education for their children. By providing school choice, we can promote innovation in our schools, provide more personalized education for our children, and improve racial and economic disparities in educational outcomes. I am pleased to have celebrated National School Choice Week and the improvements that school choice has brought to our country.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 107, which is at the desk.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, this past Saturday, January 9, was Law Enforcement Appreciation Day, a day set aside to honor the men and women who work in law enforcement, keeping our communities safe and enforcing the rule of law, which underpins any free and just society. Recently we have heard a great deal about controversies and scrutiny surrounding law enforcement in many parts of our country. It is easy to be distracted by these stories, but it is important to remember that many are inaccurate, and even the true ones are the exception, not the rule. The rule is officers such as Little Rock Police Officer Shawn Bakr. On Saturday, Officer Bakr spent his Law Enforcement Appreciation Day and his night off working as a security guard at a local restaurant. During his shift, three armed men entered a restaurant and pointed a gun at an employee in an attempted robbery. Officer Bakr's law enforcement instincts kicked in, and he reacted with calm dispatch. He confronted the suspects, who subsequently shot him in the shoulder, yet he bravely managed to return fire and injure one of the robbers. The other two suspects fled but have since been apprehended after a standoff with Little Rock police earlier today. The rule is also county sheriffs such as Johnson County Reserve Deputy Sonny Smith, who died in the line of duty last year after he was shot while responding to a burglary. Deputy Smith confronted danger head-on to protect his fellow Arkansans, and he gave the full measure of devotion to duty that only those called to serve in the front lines can fully understand. The rule is also the large group of Deputy Smith's law enforcement colleagues who stood to the right of the stage, just hours after his death--a place typically reserved for parents--and saluted during his son's high school graduation ceremony so he would feel the support and love of the law enforcement community to which his dad belonged. As a soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, my soldiers and I knew what it meant to face our enemy head-on, but at the end of our tours, we went home. Many of us worked in much less dangerous jobs at military bases around the country until our next tour or we left the service. For law enforcement officers, there is no end to the tour. They take risks every single day, often for the lengths of their careers. Officer Bakr's and Deputy Smith's actions are heroic by any definition, but to them and to countless other law enforcement officers across the country, that is simply part of the job description. Each day that they go to work, our law enforcement personnel around the country put themselves in harm's way to keep us and our communities safe. So to all of our law enforcement officers, the men and women who serve with the selfless dedication of Shawn Bakr and Sonny Smith, thank you for your service and for your sacrifice. May God bless you and your families and keep you safe. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, today I am proud to join my fellow Senator from Arkansas, John Boozman, in recognizing Senator Dale Bumpers' service, as well as our majority leader and other Senators who are reminiscing about Senator Bumpers, who passed away earlier this month. Arkansas lost one of its most distinguished public servants when former Senator and Governor Dale Bumpers died at the age of 90. As both a Governor and Senator, Dale Bumpers' tireless dedication to our State began before I was born and spanned many decades. As someone who grew up with Dale Bumpers already in the Senate and who was unable to ever vote for him, I asked my mom Avis about her memories of Senator Bumpers. Like so many, she was quick to remember the oratory skills for which he was so famous--not only in Arkansas but also in Washington and in the Senate, which has had its share of famous orators over its history. But she also had fond memories of him on a personal scale as well from the Mount Nebo Chicken Fry, an annual event just outside my hometown of Dardanelle. In the early 1970s, as a young Governor, Senator Bumpers--then Governor Bumpers--always made it to our chicken fry. And if it weren't for a few obvious clues--such as a State trooper or local photographers taking pictures--you wouldn't have even known he was the top executive of our State, so humble and friendly was he to all the fairgoers. He spent time with each person there and made everyone feel like they had his full attention--the full attention of our Governor. It is an honor to stand here today in the same institution from which he did so much great work for the State of Arkansas. Senator Bumpers was an Arkansas institution himself, and his legacy has outlived his tenure in office. We are grateful for his service and commitment to Arkansas. My thoughts and prayers are with the Bumpers family and with all Arkansans, whom he so faithfully served. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

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

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

Mr. COTTON. I yield back all time.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I will be brief. I wish to respond to what I heard earlier this morning from the Democratic leader and what we heard from the President on Sunday night. The Democrats would have us believe that any person on a watch list can go and buy a firearm without any notice whatsoever. That is simply false. The background check system that federally licensed firearm dealers use includes a terrorist watch list, and the FBI counterterrorism division is notified when that occurs. Of course, the list is notoriously inaccurate. A Department of Justice IG report just a few years ago said half of the names on the list are incorrect. The New York Times, which continues its proselytizing for gun control, used to be strongly opposed to the use of this list. Most famously, Ted Kennedy, a U.S. Senator from America's leading political dynasty, was on the list and couldn't get off for weeks, having his flights disrupted time after time. Stephen Hayes, a well-known conservative journalist who I admit looks a little suspicious, also found himself on the list. It took him months of public commentary, and he was only removed from the list when Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson was challenged on the news about him being on the list. If it took Ted Kennedy and Stephen Hayes weeks or months to get off that list, how long would it take the little guy in Arkansas? For that matter, how long do we think it would take patriotic Muslim Americans who are on the list--most likely because of confusion about their names with suspected terrorists--to get off that list? Moreover, what other rights would Democrats like to deprive American citizens of without notice and due process? Their right to free speech? Their right to practice their religion? Their right to petition their government? Their right to enlist unreasonable search and seizures? Their right to a trial by jury? Their right to confront their accusers? Their right to get just compensation when their property is taken? Democrats should quit being so politically correct. They should focus on winning the war against radical Islam. If they did, maybe fewer Americans would feel the need to buy firearms to protect themselves from terrorist attacks. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, in September, we learned shocking news that the U.S. Secret Service--armed agents of the Executive--violated the law to intimidate a congressman from doing his constitutional duty. Forty-five Secret Service employees accessed the personal records of Congressman Jason Chaffetz in violation of the Privacy Act. They shared with hundreds of personnel the fact that Congressman Chaffetz had unsuccessfully applied to join the Service, leading to a leak of the information to the news media. This activity was not limited to low-level employees. The Service's Assistant Director and head of training, Ed Lowery, encouraged the sharing of information, writing in an email: Some information that he might find embarrassing needs to get out. Just to be fair. The Director of the Service, Joe Clancy, failed to act to rein in the behavior when the information was raised to him. He had no reaction when he heard what he deemed to be a speculative rumor about the information. He apparently forgot that he had been informed of Congressman Chaffetz's personal records, incorrectly telling the Homeland Security Department's inspector general that he didn't learn of the matter until it was about to be published in the Washington Post. The White House's reaction to this criminal violation was equally muted. The White House implied that an apology to Congressman Chaffetz would suffice in the absence of formal discipline and a criminal investigation. This was unacceptable. To ensure that proper remedial action took place, I placed a hold on three ambassadorial nominees to send a clear message to the White House. I intended to lift these holds once two actions took place: First, I asked that the Department of Homeland Security take appropriate disciplinary action against all Secret Service personnel involved, including Secret Service leadership; second, I requested that a criminal investigation be initiated by the Department of Justice into violations of the Privacy Act. Since I placed the holds, the White House reached out to my office and made clear that the President understood the gravity of the violations that occurred. In the past month, the Obama administration has finally begun to take action. The Department of Homeland Security issued disciplinary proposals for the suspension of 42 lower level personnel involved in the misconduct. For senior-level personnel-- including Assistant Director Lowery--discipline proposals are being prepared, with the maximum penalty ranging up to the removal from their positions. This discipline may or may not be proper in each case, but my intent isn't to be an HR officer for the Department of Homeland Security. Instead, when I instituted the holds on the three ambassadorial nominees, I made it clear my aim was not to keep these nominees in limbo indefinitely. My sole aim was to force action from the Obama administration, which too often ignores this separation of powers and proper enforcement of our laws. Because the Obama administration has taken partial steps to hold those who violated the law to account, I will in turn honor my word and lift two of the three holds I have on ambassadorial nominations: Mr. Samuel Heins, who is nominated to be the U.S. Ambassador to Norway, and Ms. Azita Raji, who is nominated to be the U.S. Ambassador to Sweden. I believe both are qualified to represent our Nation abroad, and we have significant interests in Scandinavia. My hope is that both nominees receive a vote and are confirmed in the Senate sooner rather than later. I will retain, however, the hold on President Obama's Ambassador to the Bahamas. This is because the Department of Justice has yet to initiate an investigation into the unauthorized access and dissemination of Congressman Chaffetz's personal records. The DHS inspector general has testified to Congress that he believes criminal violations of the Privacy Act occurred. Secret Service Director Clancy, in his own testimony to Congress, agreed with the inspector general, acknowledging that the violations constituted, in his words, ``a criminal offense.'' With such agreement between the Department of Homeland Security IG and the Secret Service Director, I retain the hope and fully expect that a criminal investigation of these offenses by the Department of Justice will be forthcoming. That investigation and the discipline currently being meted out by the Department of Homeland Security are important to send the message that politically motivated crimes will not be tolerated. Consequences are needed to make clear that the separation of powers will be respected and that Members of Congress acting on behalf of the people will not be intimidated. I also reserve the right to place new holds on future administration nominees. What we cannot have is impunity for criminal offenses. If the discipline for the Secret Service leadership is too weak or if a criminal investigation is not initiated, I may place additional holds in order to again remind the White House of the seriousness of this matter, but in the meantime I look forward to continuing to work with the administration to ensure that discipline is appropriate and a criminal investigation on this matter is initiated. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I hereby recognize the military veterans currently residing at the Arkansas Hospice at CHI St. Vincent Hospital in Little Rock, AR, as well as the caregivers, staff, and volunteers at CHI St. Vincent who also served their country in uniform, and their families who have made their own sacrifices in support of our troops. These men and women put their lives on the line in defense of our freedom and our values. They have kept America safe. They have defended our Constitution and our freedom. They have saved lives. They have gone abroad and waged war not to conquer, loot, and pillage, but to liberate and to secure ``a just, and a lasting peace'' with our fellow man, in the words of the President who commanded over our most awful war. Our veterans served their country with courage, pride, and distinction. We owe them a debt of gratitude that we can never fully repay. Now, as many of the veterans at CHI St. Vincent are approaching their final moments of life, let us honor them and the cause for which they fought.

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 wish to speak about our vote on the waters of the United States and the Environmental Protection Agency. I noted that the White House has lately been advocating for criminal justice reform. They say an underlying problem with the justice system today is that Congress criminalized too much conduct too severely. But it is the same White House that is behind the new waters of the United States regulation--an Executive power grab that would effectively put every landowner in Arkansas and in America at risk of Federal criminal charges for making adjustments to land on their own private property. The waters of the United States regulation gives the government jurisdiction--and, in turn, the danger of Federal criminal charges-- over tributaries, adjacent waters, and ``other waters.'' This includes streams that only exist after heavy rains or, as some of us call them, mud puddles. If a landowner in Arkansas has so much as a ditch on his or her property, he or she could be liable for Federal criminal charges for disturbing that ditch in any way. If a homeowner wants to add an addition to his garage and this addition even touches ``land that fills with water after rain,'' also known as just ``land,'' this homeowner could be liable for Federal criminal charges. President Obama and my Democratic colleagues argue that we are exaggerating: Come on, they say; the Environmental Protection Agency would never bring charges against a homeowner for expanding his garage or trying to regulate a mud puddle. They insist on the benevolence of the EPA and ask us to trust them to exercise good judgment and reasonable discretion. Before we trust the EPA's benevolence, though, it is prudent to examine the EPA's own track record. Let's consider that in August of this year, the EPA directed contractors to excavate the Gold King Mine in Colorado without first testing the water pressure or calculating water volume. In the worst environmental disaster in recent years, the EPA caused more than 3 million tons of toxic wastewater to pollute the Animas River. Since the spill, much of the toxicity remains, endangering farmers, landowners, Native Americans, and anyone who relies on this river. After the spill, the EPA has refused to turn over documents, disciplined no one, failed to show up to congressional hearings, refused to take responsibility, and still won't answer the simple question of whether the Agency will pay for the damages it caused. The Navajo Nation in New Mexico relies on the river polluted by the EPA for drinking water and for farming. In the days following the spill, the Navajo lost their water supply. The EPA offered to deliver clean water that the Navajo could use for drinking and crop irrigation but, instead, they used dirty oil tankers to deliver contaminated water. The EPA is not only a threat to citizens, to landowners, and to businesses, but it is also a threat to the environment they purport to protect. Since the disaster, the EPA has continued to spill toxic wastewater into creeks and rivers. There has been zero accountability for this Agency. Based on that track record, I don't think we should be giving the EPA any more power. That is why I joined my colleagues earlier today to vote to roll back the waters of the United States regulation before the EPA criminalizes nearly every landowner in the United States. But we should also consider the bigger picture. This regulation is a symptom, not the problem. The problem is the EPA itself--its overreach and lack of accountability. That is why we must pass the EPA Accountability Act. This legislation would require the EPA to pay--out of its own budget--for the damages it recklessly caused when spilling 3 million gallons of toxic waste into the Animas River. Unless the EPA faces consequences for its actions against the American people, nothing will change. It is our constitutional responsibility to provide oversight of an agency that has caused massive damage to both the American people and to the environment. We must protect Arkansans and Americans from EPA overreach and lack of accountability. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I support this important bill, but I want to strengthen it. Under the bill, a business receives liability protection by reporting threats to DHS or its regulatory agency, but many businesses, especially retailers like Target or Home Depot, don't have a regulator; thus, they must report to DHS. They have no choice. They must report to DHS even if they have longstanding ties to the FBI, as did Sony Pictures. I contend that we should allow these businesses to choose between the DHS, FBI, and Secret Service. Fortunately, the White House appears to agree with my position. The National Security Council tweeted over the weekend: ``If you are a victim of a major cyber incident, a call to @FBI, @SecretService, or @DHSgov is a call to all.'' This amendment wouldn't undermine the single-point-of-reporting concept behind this bill because there is already an exception for the regulators, nor would it impair privacy rights because those rules apply to the FBI. Finally, I would note that the House-passed version of this bill includes a nearly identical provision, and that got 307 votes. Let's join together in a bipartisan fashion, adopt this amendment, and strengthen the bill.