Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) would have voted ``yea''.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. President, I want to begin my remarks by commending our colleagues in the House for taking up a bill later today that I introduced with the junior Senator from Michigan, Mr. Peters, and Congresswoman Comstock over in the House of Representatives.

We passed this bill unanimously in the Senate in May. I know people believe that nothing happens in a bipartisan way around here and that certainly if it does happen, we are sharply divided somehow, but this bill passed unanimously, defying that suspicion or that intuition. Once the House passes it, it will be headed to the President's desk for his signature and will become the law of the land.

This bill authorizes a program called Project Safe Neighborhoods, which is a nationwide partnership between Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities and prosecutors focused on reducing crime and improving public safety through stronger community partnerships and targeting the most serious criminal organizations and repeat offenders.

Since its inception in 2001, Project Safe Neighborhoods has proved to reduce violent crime in cities with high participation rates, including double-digit reductions in firearms crimes and homicides. Let me say that again. Since 2001, where it has been used, those jurisdictions and those communities have seen double-digit reductions in firearms crimes and homicides.

One of the most important elements of the program is a focus on criminal organizations. When Federal, State, and local law enforcement work together to focus on those who control criminal networks, we can defeat them outright. This will also bolster other efforts we are undertaking as the Federal Government to address gun violence and school safety.

By the way, I commend Attorney General Sessions for ramping up prosecutions of gun-related crimes, especially the so-called lie-and- buy incidents, where people lie about or otherwise hide their criminal background in order to obtain firearms illegally.

Now we have taken a big step to improve the criminal background check system used when somebody enters a sporting goods store or gun shop to buy a firearm. If you are a convicted felon, if you have been convicted of domestic violence, if you have been dishonorably discharged from the military, you cannot, under current law, purchase a firearm or possess a firearm legally. But what has happened--and we saw this in Sutherland Springs because of the broken background check system--often the derogatory or disqualifying information is not uploaded into the background check system, so people enter these sporting goods stores and purchase a firearm by lying, even though they are already disqualified under Federal law. We have taken a big step here in Congress on a bipartisan basis to shut that down. It is going to take some time to fix that system, so it is important in the interim, certainly, at least, to have the Department of Justice focus on those who lie and buy firearms illegally.

Under Attorney General Sessions, enforcement of our existing gun laws has been dramatically improved. There was a 15-percent increase in all Federal gun prosecutions last year. People like me believe we ought to focus on the person, on the individual, and not on the instrumentality or the tool, because obviously law-abiding citizens are not a threat to public safety and certainly don't go out and commit crimes. But by focusing on criminals and people who are not legally qualified to purchase a firearm in the first place or possess one under current law, we can help improve public safety and lower the crime rate.

What is happening under Attorney General Sessions and this administration is in great contrast to what we saw under Eric Holder, who often failed to enforce existing gun laws adequately against violent criminals. Those who illegally possess or purchase firearms must be held accountable, and I am glad to see the Congress and administration working together to ensure that happens.

The Project Safe Neighborhoods Authorization Act is another important piece of our bipartisan commitment to reduce violent crime by focusing on the most serious offenders and improving law enforcement relations with the communities they serve. It is important that Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies work together in close coordination because then we can solve the most complex challenges that drive violent crime and make our communities safer. The Project Safe Neighborhoods Authorization Act is a significant step in that direction.

Student Visa Program

On another topic, Mr. President, this afternoon, I will be chairing a Judiciary subcommittee hearing titled ``Student Visa Integrity: Protecting Educational Opportunity and National Security.''

We are blessed in America with a world-class higher education and university system. Everybody wants to come to America to go to college or graduate school, and that is a good thing, by and large. The point of today's hearing, though, is to raise awareness about a very real issue that we must be diligently aware of and to hear from Federal agencies responsible for our national security, visa policy, and the vetting of foreign nationals because we know our open society here in America is also exploited by our adversaries for their own benefit and to undermine our national security at home.

We hope to shed light on policies and procedures that are in place or should be in place to address what has become a growing source of concern. That issue primarily but not solely relates to China's aggressive activity to surpass the United States on all fronts-- militarily, economically, and technologically--and use whatever means necessary--legal or not, open or secret--to achieve their goals.

The interesting thing about China is they have advertised their plans. They are there for the world to see, and all we need to do is read what they have said they intend to do. Through its ``Made in China 2025'' strategy, China is accelerating its efforts to acquire U.S. intellectual property and sensitive research, and that is where our universities come in. That is where most of the important research takes place.

This past February, FBI Director Wray testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee about the security risks posed by certain foreign students, visiting scientists, and scholars at America's colleges and universities. Director Wray's remarks were brief, and because of the sensitive and classified nature of the issue, he could not provide the full context and breadth of the concerns in an open setting, but what he has said publicly is alarming.

He said that the FBI is ``watching warily.'' He said that ``naivete'' was exacerbating the problem. I think that by ``naivete,'' he meant a lack of public awareness about the problem and thus a lack of vigilance on the part of our university systems and the public generally--that is what he was referring to as ``naivete''--and it is hurting our national security.

He also said that the Chinese Government has been very aggressive about planting spies--foreign intelligence officers--on our university campuses and our research facilities in order to accomplish its goals. That is not the only way they are doing it, but that is a significant way they are trying to achieve the goals they set in ``Made in China 2025,'' enhancing their national security and robbing us of our technological advantage. Particularly when it comes to military-use technology, they are all in. It is an all-of-government approach.

As I said, we are fortunate to have the top universities in the world, and they are known for their open research and development environment, which fosters collaboration and innovation across a broad array of industry sectors and academic disciplines. That is a good thing, but what is happening now, as Director Wray said, is that foreign actors are taking advantage of that environment--again, of our vulnerability as an open environment--and they are using it to study, learn, and acquire sensitive information, to the detriment of U.S. national security.

This is not an isolated problem. Director Wray said the Bureau is monitoring universities from virtually all of its 56 field offices across the Nation, not just in major cities. So it is not just New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, or Houston; it is all across the country.

Approximately 350,000 Chinese students are enrolled at U.S. universities--350,000. That is 35 percent of all foreign students in the United States. As those numbers suggest, there is ample opportunity for mischief.

Most--and I want to emphasize the word ``most''--most students and visiting scholars come for legitimate reasons, and we welcome them. We should welcome them. They come here to learn, share our culture, and contribute their talents to the United States. I think our educational system here in America is one of the greatest elements of our soft power, where we invite foreign students to come to study in our colleges and universities and learn more about who we are and about our values and to take those back home and become natural allies with us in making the world a better and safer place. But it is important to note that the Chinese Communist Party, which dominates the Government in China, has the capacity to influence all students from that country who come here and the academics.

I want to emphasize that this is not about restricting student visas. Students from across the world are welcome to come and study at our colleges and universities, and I encourage all of them to explore opportunities for them to do so. It is good for them, and it is good for us. What the hearing is about and what we should all be concerned about are security risks and the theft of intellectual property at our universities.

Again, as the FBI Director said, we shouldn't be naive. This theft is occurring, it is well documented, and we

have to take the necessary preventive measures to ensure that it doesn't continue to occur.

While I have highlighted China's activities, these concerns are certainly not limited to one country. There are other countries, including state sponsors of terrorism, like Iran, that are actively working to steal U.S. technology, bypass expensive U.S. research and development, and exploit the student visa program to gain information that will benefit their countries. It seems like such a logical target for them. If they have no regard for the rule of law, if they can steal technology that we have spent years and billions of dollars to develop and acquire and implement, it is a huge economic advantage for them, and it helps catapult their national security apparatus in ways that eventually will overcome our national security structure itself.

As one example, just this last March, the Department of Justice indicted 9 Iranian hackers who had stolen more than 31 terabytes of information, totaling $3 billion in intellectual property, from more than 300 American and foreign universities. While I have said that China is the biggest, most obvious culprit, there are others, as well, and we hope to discuss all of them in our hearing.

Finally, let me say that our colleges and universities, again, have become a mecca for foreign nationals because of the high-quality education and the academic and cultural freedoms that exist in America. In order to preserve those crown jewels, we have to make sure that American research is protected and that the intellectual property developed in our colleges and universities is protected.

Today's hearing in the Judiciary Committee about the student visa program is about protecting the educational atmosphere we have worked generations to build in this country. Again, our higher education system is the envy of the world. That is why students come here. They flock here, as many as can, in order to study at our colleges and universities. Again, this is a good thing. We need to hear how U.S. institutions and higher education can actively protect their most sensitive areas from potential intrusion from foreign states with less than honorable purposes and intent.

In addition to the testimony we are going to hear from Federal agencies this afternoon at the hearing, we are going to hear from Texas A&M University, which has been recognized for its excellence in providing security for that research and intellectual property, which are targets for foreign actors. We are going to hear from NAFSA, the Association of International Educators, about the value and talent foreign nationals bring to the U.S. national education system. As these panelists will suggest, this is a complex problem. No one is suggesting that it is not. There are a lot of different angles to it, and we need to do our best to learn and listen from all sides and make good policy decisions about what we should do in response to this threat.

I look forward to learning about how we can continue to open our doors to foreign students and, at the same time, protect ourselves from espionage and outright theft, which ultimately makes our country less safe.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I want to take just a few minutes to talk about the last 18 months and what a Republican-led Congress has done during the first 500 days of the Trump administration.

I heard my friend the Democratic leader call this a Republican economy, and I am proud to embrace that for the reasons I will mention here in just a moment and contrast that to life in America postrecession, in 2008, where slow economic growth, high unemployment, and a disproportionate number of people not even seeking work were accepted as the new norm.

The American people understand they don't have to accept that as the new normal--that we can aspire to better, and we can do better, and that is exactly what we have seen manifested in the American economy. The rank-and-file American worker, every American family, and everybody in this country--regardless of race, ethnicity, whatever identity you might want to talk about--have benefited.

There have been many accomplishments, but perhaps the greatest, as I said, is the new energized state of the economy. There is a sense of hope and optimism once again. We can see that reflected in people's retirement accounts mainly invested in the stock market. The stock market has boomed since the Trump election, and that is not just for the big corporations. That is for the teachers, the pension funds, the firefighters, the first responders--for average Americans who invest their retirement savings in mutual funds or in the stock market--and they have benefited.

The unemployment rate has reached a 48-year low--a 48-year low--and 14 States have hit record low unemployment as well.

My friend from New York talked about gasoline prices. Oil output jumped to the highest on record in March, including a 4-percent increase in production in my home State. In

other words, we are depending less and less on imported oil from Saudi Arabia and Middle East countries, which have been the focus of our geopolitics for so many years because they have been the main source of the energy that drives the world economy, and now we are producing more of that here in America. That means more jobs and more national security right here at home.

Consumer confidence is at a 17-year high. People are feeling optimistic and hopeful about the future. Nearly 3 million jobs have been created since President Trump took office, including 304,000 in the manufacturing sector, 337,000 in construction, and 223,000 in May alone.

What I hear time and again when I go back to Texas is employers saying: We are having a hard time finding the workers we need because there is so much demand for workers, for laborers, that now employers are having to compete for the workforce they need in order to perform the jobs they have now, as a result of the growing economy. What does that mean? It means that paychecks go up as there are labor shortages, and employers have to compete more for that workforce. Sixty-seven percent of Americans believe that now is a good time to find a quality job.

The biggest challenge we have, given the rapidly evolving nature of our global economy and of technology and the jobs that are being created, is to train and equip the workforce of tomorrow for the jobs that will be available. That is why we have invested so much money in our community colleges and workforce training, in partnerships with industry--to make sure that more and more people can qualify for those good, well-paying jobs.

I am thinking about a single mom, a Hispanic woman in Amarillo, TX, who worked as a jail guard--until she went to Amarillo community college and learned how to be an aircraft mechanic. Today, she works on the production line for the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, one of the most advanced air platforms in the world. My recollection is that she is making $18 an hour now. That is a real solution for a real problem, and I bet every Member of this Chamber could talk about similar stories.

In Houston, as a result of the natural gas renaissance in this country--thanks to the science, thanks to the creativity and innovation of the American energy companies--we are now seeing a huge influx of petrochemical companies reestablishing themselves in places where they can get access to low-cost feedstock fuel. What that is doing is creating even more jobs.

In the Pasadena Unified School District and around the Houston area, they are working with San Jacinto community college to help people who don't yet have the skills they need get the certificates they need in order to qualify for those good, well-paying jobs. Not everybody needs to go to a 4-year liberal arts college. If they want to, I am all for it. But many people want to get a good job, enjoying the solid middle class, and do jobs that need to be done. They need access to training in order to get the qualifications they need. That, to me, is one of the big challenges that confront us, particularly as the economy changes so quickly because of technology.

Another big reason the economy has taken off like a rocket is the tax reform package we passed last summer. That has been perhaps the biggest game changer. The problem my friend the Democratic leader has is that every single Democrat voted against it. Remember, Nancy Pelosi called the benefits of that ``crumbs.'' What it has done is open doors and new opportunities for American families.

According to the White House, American families will receive $3.2 trillion in gross tax cuts, and they have seen the child tax credit double. The top corporate rate was lowered from 35 to 21 percent so that American businesses could be more productive.

When President Obama talked about the need for America to be more competitive by lowering that corporate rate, he talked about our need to compete in the global economy. When we debated the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Democrats called it a corporate giveaway. That is absolutely indefensible.

The results of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act have been profound, indeed. More than 500 companies have used these tax savings to benefit their employees. They have announced pay raises, 401(k) match increases. There have been cuts to utility rates for seniors and people on fixed incomes because investor-owned utilities have had to lower their charges in order to comply with the law, which allows them a reasonable rate of return. They can't charge what the market will bear; they need to comply with their local laws. So what we have seen is that many investor-owned utilities have lowered utility rates for seniors and people on fixed incomes.

We have seen other businesses offer substantial bonuses and other benefits. A recent survey by the National Association of Manufacturers showed that 77 percent of manufacturers in America intend to increase hiring, and 93 percent of them have a positive outlook.

One of the things President Trump talked about during his campaign was that so much of our manufacturing had moved overseas. But what these numbers indicate is that the manufacturing sector is alive and well here in the United States when given the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.

This is the kind of optimism I am hearing when I visit places like College Station, Austin, and Amarillo, home of the Big Texan 72-ounce steak. If you can eat it in an hour, along with a baked potato, you can get the meal for free. I didn't try that, but some people do, and some people get the free meal--but not a lot of people, would be my guess.

In Austin, I visited with one of the owners of Wally's Burgers and met with other small businesses--pest control companies and the like-- and they talked about the benefits they are seeing in their small businesses from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The stories just go on and on and on.

I have also had constituents write to my office, explaining how the boost in their monthly paychecks is making a big difference when it comes to buying groceries, paying bills, and starting long-delayed projects. Maybe no Democrat voter lives paycheck to paycheck, but I can tell you, some of my constituents do, and they appreciate the additional money in their paycheck as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

I think what happened, when our Democratic colleagues unanimously voted against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, they were making a big bet that we would fail to deliver that bill, and it would somehow be an embarrassment and setback for this side of the aisle. Well, they bet against the American people, and they bet against our commitment to make sure the benefits of this bill would be delivered to the average American family.

In one recent piece of news, Costco, which has ten locations in Texas, announced they would be increasing wages for 130,000 employees, not because the government mandated it but because they need to do that in order to be competitive, and they are passing the benefits on to their employees. But that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Amidst all of this good news, we also need to remember that there are two specific targeted measures that are often overlooked. It repealed ObamaCare's burdensome tax on the middle class, who refused to purchase Washington-mandated health insurance. This is the so-called ObamaCare mandate. It basically was a tax on poor and middle-income people who couldn't afford to buy the high-price ObamaCare policies.

We also opened up something that has been a point of contention for many, many years--the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy exploration.

Senator Scott from South Carolina talked about his Opportunity Zone provision, which provides tax benefits to businesses that start a business and grow a business in poor and blighted areas. Senator Fischer from Nebraska talked about her tax provision, which provides encouragement to employers to provide family leave when families need that in order to deal with a family illness or a newborn child or whatever the case may be.

Those are real and tangible benefits to the people we serve. And our colleagues want to talk about corporate giveaways? That is pure demagoguery, short and simple. What else do you have when you have made a bet and you lost that bet by betting against the benefits from this bill?

It is not just the economy that deserves mention; another important accomplishment has been the confirmation of judges who will interpret the Constitution faithfully and say what the law is, not what, because of their personal policy preferences, they wish it might be.

In a former life, I served on the bench--the State bench, not the Federal bench--for 13 years at the trial court level and on the Texas Supreme Court. I believe very strongly in the importance of having judges--that third branch of government--who will understand and appreciate their role in the U.S. Government. In other words, the reason we don't elect judges is because we don't expect them to gauge public opinion. The reason we don't expect them to campaign on an agenda--we expect them to interpret the law, including the Constitution of the United States, the fundamental law, not to promote policies based on their preference or based on some ideology. To me, that is the opposite of what we want judges to do.

The Trump administration has seen confirmed 21 circuit court judges. These are the intermediate appeals court judges who essentially are the court of last resort for most cases since the U.S. Supreme Court now only hears about 80 cases a year. They provide the guidance in the most difficult cases, where the circuit courts are divided.

This now means that one in eight appeals court judges has been appointed by President Trump and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. These are people who will serve not just 4 years, not just 6 years, not just 8 years, but perhaps 20 years or 30 years or longer--a lifetime tenure. These circuit courts will hear appeals from district courts that set binding precedent for those lower courts on a wide range of issues.

It is worth pointing out that President Obama's 21st circuit court nominee was not confirmed until 33 months into his administration. So it is not just that we are confirming good judges; we are doing it at a very good clip, comparatively speaking.

The President has appointed and we have confirmed two judges to the Fifth Circuit who serve the State of Texas--Don Willett, a former justice on the Texas Supreme Court, and Jim Ho, the former Texas solicitor general. We have one in the queue who has been voted out of committee, Andy Oldham, the counsel to our Governor, who has been nominated to the Fifth Circuit. And that is not to mention some very talented district judges, the people who are at the ground level of our civil justice system, people like Karen Scholer and David Counts. We hope to have one more Federal district judge confirmed before the end of this week--Fernando Rodriguez, whom Senator Cruz and I recommended to the President and he has nominated.

The other major accomplishment of this administration over the last 18 months is repealing burdensome overregulation from the previous administration. Many of these regulations were passed by the Obama administration as they were heading out the door, without a real opportunity for public input and review. We have repealed a historic number--16 of them--using the Congressional Review Act. Previously, there had been only one example where Congress had repealed a regulation using the Congressional Review Act.

Thanks to the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, we have also repealed something that was a bullying tactic by the Federal Government. This was a scheme by the previous administration to use guidance from Federal agencies where they didn't pass a rule, where they were required under the law to gain input as part of that rulemaking process. So what they would do is they would issue guidance. You can imagine how that was treated by people in the private sector. They didn't want to have to defend a lawsuit, so they grudgingly complied with the guidance even though there wasn't any process and input from the public on what that guidance should be. Thanks again to our colleague Senator Toomey, we have successfully repealed those sorts of quasi-regulations, as well, using the Congressional Review Act.

Our use of the Congressional Review Act has been referred to as the most ambitious regulatory rollback since Ronald Reagan.

As I talk to people, the job creators in our country, they tell me that not only has it been the tax cuts, but it has been the regulatory rollback and it has been the signal that Washington is sending that businesses small and large will have more freedom to pursue their ends, their dreams, without the wet blanket of government regulation.

President Trump has also used his executive branch pen to issue 22 deregulatory actions for every new regulatory one. These are big wins, including for our farmers and energy producers.

On top of that, when it comes to ObamaCare, one of the aspects of ObamaCare was something called the Independent Payment Advisory Board. We repealed that in our budget agreement earlier this year, which will allow seniors and their families to take greater control of their healthcare decisions without being subjected to the whims of unelected bureaucrats.

What ``unelected bureaucrats'' translates into is ``unaccountable bureaucrats.'' In other words, if you don't like what the bureaucrat is doing, you have almost no recourse, and that is by design in this Independent Payment Advisory Board. When it comes to your healthcare, you want to maintain your ability to petition your representatives if you feel the government is not treating you correctly, which this Independent Payment Advisory Board eliminated.

A fourth major accomplishment is providing relief to our community and midsized financial institutions, which have been hit hardest by some of the one-size-fits-all rulemaking approaches under Dodd-Frank. We all remember that Dodd-Frank was a response to the financial crisis of 2008, followed by the great recession. Congress, as it often does, went too far. The pendulum swung too far and affected our community banks and credit unions. I tell my community bankers in Texas: You weren't the target, perhaps, but you were the collateral damage.

We want small businesses and working families to succeed. We want them to get access to credit, the credit they need in order to succeed. Regulating community banks out of business is not the answer.

This bill was sponsored by the senior Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, and was passed on a bipartisan basis. This bill, which just passed the House, is a big win for smaller financial institutions, and it will make it easier for them to serve their communities by approving mortgages, providing credit, and lending to small businesses. This isn't mainly a win for the small banks; this is a win for their customers, for the small businesses and individuals who need access to the credit they could not get under the status quo.

Another thing that we have done recently which I think bears note-- unfortunately, so much happens in Washington, and it seems like every 15 minutes there is breaking news, and sometimes we overlook and don't celebrate these great victories, in this case on behalf of our veterans. We have been accomplishing a lot for our servicemembers and veterans. Last year, we helped restore America's defense with the greatest investment in our military in 15 years and largest troop pay increase in 8 years.

We have a bad habit here in Congress: After we have fought a war, we begin to think we can cash the peace dividend. We start to think, OK, now the world is safe, and now we can roll back our money spent on national security. Unfortunately, the world continues to be a dangerous place, and the world needs American leadership. Unfortunately, that is expensive, but there really is no option because if we don't have peace, if we don't have stability, none of the other benefits of life-- liberty and the pursuit of happiness--can exist.

Getting back to our veterans, we passed the VA MISSION Act in the last couple of weeks, which will make significant reforms to the Department of Veterans Affairs, strengthening the healthcare and community care options that are available to American veterans. This bill provided $5.2 billion for the Veterans Choice Program. For example, if you are a veteran and you call to make an appointment and they say ``Well, come see us in August'' and you can't wait, or if you have to drive 100 or 200 miles--and in the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas, if you really need to go to the veterans hospital, you have to drive all the way to San

Antonio to get your healthcare--what the act did and what we passed on a bipartisan basis allows veterans a choice. You can go see a local healthcare provider, and you can go to a local hospital if they can provide that service quicker and more efficiently.

We also provided for expanded caregiver assistance. This is a big deal. The times I have been to Walter Reed visiting Texans who were injured in Afghanistan or Iraq, frequently that injured servicemember had a spouse or family member who basically would have to give up their job in order to take care of their injured spouse. It is only right and it is only just that we provide expanded caregiver assistance to those individuals who do that.

Finally, we have seen a crackdown on imported illegal drugs. As of April, the Border Patrol had seized 284 pounds of fentanyl--already greatly surpassing the total amount seized in fiscal year 2017. I don't have to repeat what a devastating impact the opioid crisis-- prescription drugs or the alternatives, which are heroin and fentanyl-- has had on our communities.

These are just a handful of ways we are doing what the American people elected us to do. We put money back in their pockets. We rolled back regulations. We strengthened our military. We have given healthcare flexibility to our veterans. We protected our communities from harm. The best part of this story is, we are just getting started.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator

from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

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

Madam President, this week, we will be taking up the National Defense Authorization Act, which Congress has passed for 57 consecutive years to support and guide our country's military. Earlier this month, the Armed Services Committee voted overwhelmingly--25 to 2--to advance this important legislation to the Senate floor, so when I hear people say that there is no bipartisan consensus for anything in Washington these days, I think that is belied by the facts and certainly in this case by our bipartisan commitment to provide that support and guidance for our Nation's military.

According to the Department of Defense, there are 1.8 million Americans around the world on Active Duty in the U.S. military. The United States has 737 installations overseas, and the DOD--the Department of Defense--is the world's largest employer. Supporting all these people and the facilities they occupy is a Herculean task, and the Defense authorization bill is one very significant way that we do just that. It is how we make sure that all of our American servicemembers are trained, equipped, and paid and that our alliances are strengthened and our military facilities are properly modernized and maintained. We have an All-Volunteer military, and it is important for us to do all of these things in terms of quality of life, in addition to the basics, to prepare our warriors for hopefully an avoidable fight, but when it is unavoidable, to prepare them for that conflict.

In Texas, there are roughly 200,000 military men and women stationed in places like Fort Hood, Joint Base San Antonio, the Red River Army Depot, and Ellington Field. These are the people I think about as we take up this Defense authorization bill. They rely on us to deliver what we have asked them to do, to give them the tools, the equipment, and the training to do what we have asked them to do. That goal is increasingly difficult because the world is a very complex and dangerous place. The array of national security threats facing the United States is more complex and diverse than at any time since World War II. Our leadership at the Pentagon says that the strategic environment has not been this competitive since the Cold War. Simply put, America no longer enjoys the competitive edge it once had over our competitors and adversaries.

Secretary Mattis and the Department of Defense have admirably crafted the national defense strategy that was delivered to Congress earlier this year laying out its strategic goal. This was a critical first step, but now the strategy must be implemented. The Defense authorization bill will align that strategy with the resources necessary to implement it--the investments, the policies, the authorizations--with the new orientation articulated in that strategy.

The Secretary of Defense will reevaluate the highest priority missions for the Department of Defense, the roles of the joint force, as well as the capabilities required to complete these missions.

All told, in its current form, the Defense authorization will support $716 billion for our national defense. To those who would think that the price is too high, I would say there is no option. There is no nation in the world that is as capable of keeping the peace and deterring aggressors around the world. In fact, the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government is to provide for our common defense.

All of the rights that we enjoy in this great country of ours flow from the freedoms that are protected by our men and women in uniform. We have seen what has happened in the last few years when America has receded and retreated from its leadership role.

We don't have to fight all of these fights on our own. As General Mattis says, it is appropriate for Americans to fight by, with, and through our allies, which is the strategy we are using now rather than placing boots on the ground in many of these locations.

One important piece of the bill is bolstering recruitment, retention, and effectiveness of our Armed Forces.

A second important piece that was included in the committee markup of the NDAA is legislation I introduced called the Children of the Military Protection Act. This will close a jurisdictional loophole affecting military installations when minors commit criminal offenses on base. Because it is a military base, the Federal Government has the jurisdiction, but frequently Federal prosecutors don't have the time or the resources to prosecute the cases, so they fall through the cracks. This legislation will allow Federal prosecutors to relinquish jurisdiction to the State in these instances, allowing State-level authorities to take up the case when the Federal Government's other responsibilities and finite resources prevent it from being able to do so.

I am proud to join with Senator King, the junior Senator from Maine, in this effort. This is a bipartisan priority that Members on both sides of the aisle should rally behind. Our children on our military bases must be protected at all costs. When they are assaulted, their assailant should not escape justice because of loopholes in the law.

Although the Federal Government maintains jurisdiction over military

bases, as I have said, unfortunately, it does not always assert its prosecutorial authority. Historically, Federal prosecutors have pursued roughly 15 percent of juvenile sex offense cases, and that is clearly not enough. We have to address this black hole for juvenile justice. We have to give local prosecutors the authority they need to go after these cases on our bases with the agreement of the Federal authorities.

I look forward to my legislation being a part of the NDAA when we vote on it perhaps as soon as next week.

There is one final aspect of the Defense authorization bill I would like to touch on, and it involves how we address future threats to our national security.

I have spoken quite a bit on the floor about the threat China poses to the United States, and they are not even coy about it. They have told us what their plan is. Their plan is to grow their economy and to grow their military in a way that dwarfs the power and economy of the United States.

Let me talk a little bit about the threat. I have spoken about that threat, but let me quote the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who recently said that it is ``in the Indo-Pacific region [where] the United States faces a near-term belligerent threat armed with nuclear weapons and also a longer-term strategic competitor.'' Of course, my friend Congressman Mac Thornberry is talking about China, ``the competitor,'' and the ``belligerent threat'' he identified was North Korea.

That is why this year's Defense authorization bill, among other goals, prioritizes military readiness in the region and strengthens our key partnerships there. It promotes security and stability in the Indo- Pacific through exercises with our allies and supports improving Taiwan's defense capabilities.

Even more important, the Defense authorization bill will include legislation I coauthored, along with the senior Senator from California Mrs. Feinstein, known as the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, or FIRRMA.

This legislation will allow us to better intercept threats to our national security posed by China when its companies masquerade as normal corporate actors, but, in fact, they are an arm of the Communist Party and the leadership in that country.

As has been well documented, China is intent upon, No. 1, stealing our intellectual property, and when they can't do that, strategically investing to get access to both the intellectual property and the know- how to be able to take advantage of all the research and development expenditures we have made in our country and to short circuit that in developing their equivalent. Our legislation will modernize the review process of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and ensure that we are better protected from these sophisticated threats and help us maintain our technological edge in the national defense realm, but, as I said earlier, the Defense authorization bill is important for reasons that hit much closer to home.

In years past, this bill has authorized needed improvements at our military facilities. It has given our troops a much needed and much deserved pay raise and updated advanced aircraft, ships, and ground vehicles. These, too, have implications in all of our States, and Texas is no exception.

So when I vote on the Defense authorization bill, I will be thinking about servicemembers back in my State in addition to all those who serve in remote locations overseas. We need to get the Defense authorization bill across the finish line for them and for our country.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young).

Mr. President, this weekend, we honor those who have fought on the frontlines in battle and made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the United States of America. These men and women represent America at its best--a nation that is restless and unwavering in combating tyranny, that facilitates peace, and defends human rights and individual liberty across the globe; a nation that is unafraid to call evil by its name and then works to eradicate it through force, if necessary, even at great cost to itself and its own people.

Today, in advance of the holiday weekend, I say thank you to the 200,000 military men and women who are stationed in my State, the State of Texas, and to the 1.7 million veterans who call Texas home.

Thank you for having served over the course of so many years in the face of so many dangers and at such great individual sacrifice.

Of course, many of their predecessors gave their lives defending this country on the bloody fields of Gettysburg, in the trenches of the Western Front, during the storming of the beaches at Normandy, and during the Shock and Awe in Baghdad. These are just some examples, each of them unique but none of which we should ever forget.

We must also thank the military families of those warriors. I pray they find peace on Monday, when many of them will place flowers on military grave sites and speak privately to their loved ones who have passed on.

In just a few days, I will have the chance to speak to young Texans who thought hard about their futures and the future of our country and decided they want to attend our U.S. military academies. These talented high school students are the cream of the crop. They have been accepted to our Nation's five prestigious military service academies, and they will be gathering together, on Monday, in San Antonio.

Even though I am not the one who has nominated all of them, we invite everyone who has been nominated--and their families--to come to this academy sendoff. This sendoff is something I look forward to each year because it is an inspiration to me. At a time when people talk about the next generation and America's future, they reassure me that our country still produces talented, patriotic young men and women who want to serve their country and want to preserve our freedom. Meeting these young people who are making such bold and selfless decisions speaks well of the character of our Nation's next generation.

Then I will be heading down to Georgetown, TX, which is just outside of Austin, to a community called Sun City, which has a large veteran population. There, I will join in celebrating Memorial Day in a place where patriotism is not a dirty word. In Sun City, it is not an act either. Loving one's country and honoring fallen soldiers is simply a given, and I know there will be a lot of American flags on full display.

In the few days leading up to Memorial Day, we should also reflect on our duty as Members of Congress and as a nation to support our military servicemembers and their families and ask whether we are living up to our end of the bargain in Washington, DC.

Just yesterday, we took a very important step in that regard by passing the VA MISSION Act, which includes some of the most substantial reforms to the veterans' healthcare system that have been made in years.

It lowers the barriers to care for veterans and gives them more treatment options. It also simplifies the bureaucratic system of community care programs and streamlines them from seven to one. It expands the family caregivers program, which I became convinced was important after having visited wounded warriors at Walter Reed. Frequently, because of the catastrophic injuries they have suffered, a spouse has had to quit his or her job and basically tend to the needs of that wounded warrior, just as a practical matter, and provide assistance in addition to the medical care that has been received. Expanding the family caregivers program is, I think, a step in the right direction.

In this bill, we also address opioid prescription guidelines for outside providers and encourage the hiring and retention of more Veterans Health Administration healthcare professionals.

So there is a lot to talk about when we go home for Memorial Day, and I look forward to talking to our Active-Duty military and our veterans and to demonstrating that we are doing more than just talking about it; we are actually doing something that will make a difference in their lives.

Upon our return, I am also looking forward to continuing our hard work on the National Defense Authorization Act, which is something the Presiding Officer is intimately involved in, which was marked up yesterday in the Armed Services Committee.

For 57 straight years, a Defense authorization bill has been signed into law by Presidents of both parties and through the hard work of congressional majorities that have been led by both parties. This year's legislation will help ensure our military has what it needs to achieve the most difficult missions they have ever faced and to embark on those that will inevitably arise tomorrow.

I have spoken quite a bit about the China threat recently at this podium, and that country bears mentioning again, right now, because of its connection to the Defense Authorization Act.

As the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said recently, it is ``[i]n the Indo-Pacific region [where] the United States faces a near-term, belligerent threat armed with nuclear weapons and also a longer-term strategic competitor.''

China is that longer term strategic competitor, of course, and that is what Congressman Mac Thornberry was talking about. Yet we can't just stop with China and North Korea. We need to talk about Russia, Iran, and the civil war and terrorist threat arising out of Syria and the Middle East.

All of those are important in our deliberations on the Defense authorization bill because the NDAA prioritizes military readiness across the globe where American leadership remains indispensable. It promotes security and stability in the Indo-Pacific, particularly through military exercises with our allies, and it improves Taiwan's defense capabilities while we keep our commitment to Taiwan that was established a long time ago.

The Defense authorization bill is important for reasons that hit much closer to home as well. In past years, this bill has authorized needed improvements at Texas military facilities like Fort Hood, Joint Base San Antonio, the Red River Army Depot, and Ellington Field. It has also given our troops a much needed pay raise and updated advanced aircraft, ships, and ground vehicles. All of these have implications in Texas.

As we get closer and closer to Memorial Day, let's remember what our Armed Forces have given for us, including their very lives, and everything they have given to us, which is our freedom that we enjoy every day.

Let's make sure we keep up our end of the bargain here in Washington with legislation like the VA MISSION Act and the Defense authorization bill and at home with our patriotism and our frequent signs of appreciation for their service to our great country.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

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

Mr. President, yesterday the Senate Banking Committee passed a very important piece of legislation out of the committee by a unanimous vote. I am very pleased that this legislation, which I will describe in a moment, received that sort of broad bipartisan support.

This is a bill I originally introduced with the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, to strengthen the review process of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which plays a critical role in protecting our national security. The jurisdiction of this Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States hasn't been updated in more than 40 years, and bad actors like China continue to exploit gaps in the process to acquire sensitive national security know-how, as well as military and dual-use technology from U.S. companies.

I want to be quick to say that this is not about labeling foreign investment in the United States as bad. That is not true. Foreign investment is by and large a very good thing. But when our laws are being exploited to target cutting-edge, dual-use technology that has national security applications, that is a matter of national security. This is not about banning or labeling foreign investment as being bad.

I appreciate Chairman Crapo and the Banking Committee's bipartisan work in advancing this narrowly tailored legislation to close the gaps that I just mentioned and safeguard our national security because I believe it is past time for us to do so. Every day we fail to pass this set of reforms is a day we are putting our future in jeopardy.

We need to maintain a sense of urgency and realize that when we are talking about CFIUS, or the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, there is a much bigger issue at stake, and that is the issue of competing global visions.

China makes no secret about the fact that Karl Marx is, in many ways, its national hero. In fact, there was a weeklong celebration in China earlier this month which included a mandatory study session, led by President Xi, of Marx's famous work the Communist Manifesto.

Events like these in some ways show that China is a wolf in sheep's clothing. When it tries to present itself as westernizing its economy and becoming a friend to the global community of nations, China conveniently ignores certain facts about its alternative development model and state-controlled economy. It also tends to disguise and downplay its overall geopolitical aims, to rewrite the rules of our world order and recreate them in China's own Communist image.

Whether it is China's increasing belligerence in places like the South China Sea, its crushing of internal political dissent, its flagrant human rights violations, or its population controls, such as the one-child policy, China has repeatedly shown itself as a power- hungry authoritarian, willing and able to violate the rights of its own people, and dismissive and contemptuous of international norms.

I am not being hyperbolic. I am not exaggerating. This is just the truth--the hard truth--in front of us, if we will look. So let's not deceive ourselves otherwise. When China tries to just ``blend in'' internationally, let us be wary that its rosy rhetoric and misleading narrative of cooperation are often camouflage for its true and more troubling aims.

As we all know, right now, there are high-level negotiations ongoing between the U.S. executive branch and Chinese Government officials on the very important issue of international trade, but it is important to remember that in the West, belief in free trade is almost axiomatic. In democracies like ours, free trade is based on open markets, the free flow of capital and information, as well as the rule of law.

China, on the other hand, honors none of those things. It doesn't believe in open markets, it doesn't believe in the free flow of capital of information, and it be doesn't believe in the rule of law. That reality is why we need to approach these trade negotiations delicately. We need to remain steely-eyed and make sure China isn't playing us for fools.

Of course, we are well aware of the need to tread lightly when it comes to trade. After decades of globalization, any overly broad limits on Chinese investment in the United States could harm American companies that need capital and customers to survive and grow. We need to resist that temptation.

China is not just any old trading partner. Its enterprises are state-

backed, and there is no clear dividing line between the Communist Party and what might otherwise be described as the private sector. There is no distinction. This makes a real difference when it comes to Chinese investments in U.S. companies that are at the cutting edge of developing military dual-use technologies. It means there is a real potential of industrial espionage because you can't separate private, profit-making motives from the government's secret-stealing capacities and proclivities, and this means that our national security is vulnerable.

In its Made in China 2025 plan, the Chinese Government made clear its intent to dominate technologies that will be essential down the road in maintaining our economic and military prowess globally. I have a chart here that I would like to display. It is an unclassified slide from one of our intelligence agencies. They provided us an unclassified version so that we could talk about it in public. Many of us on the Armed Services Committee or the Intelligence Committee are privy to classified briefings, but I believe it is important--and I am glad they do too--that we talk about what we can in an open, transparent way so that people can be alerted to what is at risk and what is actually going on.

These are China's strategic goals. Comprehensive national power--they see themselves as a rival to the United States, and they would ultimately like to surpass us when it comes to national power. We know that they believe their economic growth model must be innovation- driven; hence, their vacuuming up and relentless search for new, cutting-edge technology, including their activities in places like Silicon Valley, where they gobble up startup companies that have long- term potential to advance their economic and national power goals. Obviously, they are also modernizing their military and becoming increasingly belligerent in places like the South China Sea in the process.

How does China achieve these strategic goals? Well, it has an elaborate and sophisticated plan. The truth is, they are really not being clandestine or secretive about this. They are pretty much telling us what they are doing, and they are doing it quite well.

So their strategic goals include, obviously, their security services, their intelligence community, their talent recruitment programs at American academic institutions, where they hire talent back to China to help them in this process. They create front companies that claim to be non-Chinese related in order to transact business so that they don't raise suspicion. They engage in an active program of mergers and acquisitions of companies in the United States. They make significant investments in science and technology, including some of the most cutting-edge technologies, like quantum computing and artificial intelligence. They are probably the worst offender in the world when it comes to stealing through the cyber domain--cyber theft. They are very creative in engaging in research partnerships. Joint ventures, one of the gaps that the CFIUS legislation intends to plug, where they realize that this is a gap in our current review process for foreign investment and national security implications--they have done so through joint ventures that aren't currently subject to that review, where they can get access not only to the intellectual property but also to the know- how. In other words, they could steal blueprints and other intellectual property, but they don't necessarily know how to make it all work-- where the secret sauce is--until they can get access to the know-how through these joint ventures.

Then there are their nontraditional collectors. In other words, civilians are used by their intelligence services to get information to vacuum up data--scientific data, our data--that they may think are important to their pursuit of national power, innovation, and economic growth model, so they use a wide variety of nontraditional collectors as well.

Of course, in the legal and regulatory environment, an American company can't do business in China without basically turning over the keys to the government. Again, there is no delineation between the government and the private sector in China. All businesses have to cooperate with the Chinese Government, and the Chinese Government intermingles that information not only in pursuit of their economic goals but also in pursuit of their military goals.

As I said, these technologies that they are acquiring and seeking to acquire include artificial intelligence, robotics, quantum computing, and 3D printing. The Chinese Government is spending $300 billion in subsidies to supplant foreign technology suppliers like ours with homegrown alternatives, and a core part of this 2025 plan is acquiring intellectual property from the United States. China is not even trying to hide it. They are advertising it, and they are doing it in plain sight.

Those and related concerns are what prompted a bipartisan group of 27 Senators recently to write a letter to Secretary Mnuchin, Secretary Ross, as well as Ambassador Lighthizer--the U.S. trade Representative. They are all involved in the ongoing trade negotiations with China. In that letter, we expressed concerns regarding China's targeting of our technology.

As a report issued by the Pentagon recently pointed out, if left unchecked, this targeting could degrade core technological advantages of the U.S. military. Clearly, the Chinese Communist Party regards these sensitive technologies as essential for China's military modernization and is accelerating its efforts to acquire them by any means necessary--stealing them, engaging in strategic investments, any way they can do it--whether it is cyber theft, civil-military integration policies, coercion through joint ventures with foreign companies, targeted investment, or Chinese nationals exploiting access to such technologies here in the United States.

The main point of our letter was not to criticize but to alert our colleagues in the executive branch that there is no question that China is actively seeking to surpass the United States both economically and militarily and become the world's foremost superpower. It is pretty obvious.

It is imperative, though, that neither the Federal Government nor private U.S. companies aid or abet that effort either advertently or inadvertently.

Let me conclude by saying that we should all support a peaceful, balanced, and constructive relationship with China, but it has to be realistic when it comes to China's aims and intentions, and it needs to be informed, as well, by China's record of deception in the past.

When it comes to China, national security isn't just a pretext for economic protectionism. I think ``national security'' is an abuse of that label if it is used just as a pretext for protectionism. Like many of our colleagues, I believe strongly in free trade, as I started out saying in these remarks, but when national security and economic concerns overlap--which they do--there should be no question but that our national security comes first.

For those of us who serve on committees of jurisdiction involving intelligence or national security, I assure you that the Chinese threat is real, and certain dangers are already taking effect. We need to make sure that not just the committees of jurisdiction understand this and that we are working together with the executive branch when it comes to maintaining this distinction--economic and military--and understand that it is not just about trade; it is about our national security as well. We need to be smart, well informed, and clear-eyed when it comes to engaging with an aggressive China. Our inaction has had many negative consequences, and we must aim to prevent any future ones.