Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, I move to table the motion to concur with amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in the series be 10 minutes in length.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I am sure I am not unique in the fact that when I go home, my constituents ask: What in the heck is going on up there?

The truth is, amid the polarization, the misinformation, the arguments, the disagreements we naturally will have--because we represent different parties, different regions, and different points of view--it is really important to occasionally reflect on what it is we have actually done because, as I learned a long time ago as a journalism student, good news is not news.

What makes news is when there is conflict and disagreement. That is what people pay attention to. That is what reporters write about, that is what the cable TV channels run because they know people will watch it. They can sell advertising. That is sort of the way the system works.

Good news needs to be told and needs to be spread. So what I would like to do is just reflect for a few minutes on the last 17 months and what has been accomplished during that year and a half by a Republican- led Congress and by the Trump administration working together.

I think, perhaps, the single biggest accomplishment that has benefited the most people broadly across this great land of ours is the new energized state of our economy. During the last administration, following the great recession of 2008, we had this ahistorical idea that slow economic growth was the new norm; that sub-2 percent economic growth each year--which isn't fast enough to create enough jobs to keep people employed--was something we were just going to have to live with. The fact is, since World War II, the economy has not grown at 2 percent or less; it has grown at about 3.2 percent.

What we are beginning to see is the slumbering giant of the American economy wake up and grow. People have confidence again and optimism in the future, which is a good thing. Unemployment fell to 3.9 percent recently, which is the lowest in 17 years, and 14 States hit record-low unemployment as well.

As I said, consumer confidence is high. As a matter of fact, it is at an 18-year high, and the tax reform package we passed last December has been the biggest, single game-changer. Although, I want to talk about regulations in a minute, the tax reform package got America back in the game. It made us more competitive globally as a place where people who want to invest money and create a business or grow their business--it is attractive, finally. We aren't chasing people off, having to move offshore in order to compete globally. They now see America as a favorable place to invest, and that benefits all of us.

Nearly 800,000 jobs have been created, 164,000 in April alone. To me, one of the most encouraging statistics is, in February, we saw more than 800,000 people rejoin the workforce. Unemployment statistics, as the Presiding Officer knows, can be a little bit misleading because sometimes when people quit looking for work, they are not reflected in the unemployment statistics, even though they are obviously unemployed.

The fact that 800,000-plus Americans decided to rejoin the workforce because they thought there was a real chance they could get a good- paying job ought to be enormously encouraging to all of us. It is to me.

In addition to the new jobs, in addition to more people joining the workforce, we have seen people who are working receive pay raises, more take-home pay. The retirement contribution their employers made to their 401(k) plan went up in hundreds of different cases.

We have also seen people see a reduction in their utility rates--the amount of money they pay for electricity--because the for-profit utilities saw a cut in their taxable revenue, and because they are utilities they had to lower the rates in order to meet the requirements of the regulators. We have seen bonuses being paid by large companies, like AT&T in Texas, and commitments made to invest in more infrastructure. We have seen benefits across the board. The National Association of Manufacturers says that 77 percent of manufacturers in America intend to increase hiring, and 93 percent of them have a positive outlook for their companies. That is the kind of optimism I feel and hear when I travel back home.

In visits to Amarillo, College Station, Austin, and elsewhere, I have had the chance and taken the opportunity to sit down and talk to my constituents in those places and ask: How is it going? How are we doing? How are you doing? What I hear from small business owners regularly is the benefits they are seeing from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

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 making ends meet, buying groceries, paying their bills, or affording health insurance.

I alluded to this a moment ago, but one recent piece of news had the Southwestern Electric Power Company announce it had requested its utility rates be lower. Actually, it probably didn't request it be lowered, but they were lowered as a result of their lower overhead as a result of their tax bill going down.

Southwestern has more than 180,000 Texas customers and attributed the rate decreases directly to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I would say that is a good thing. When seniors and people on fixed incomes actually see their utility rates go down, it helps them make ends meet. Entergy Texas, another electric utility, has similar plans to return tax savings to customers and support continued investment. Those two companies are just the tip of the iceberg.

The economy is booming, so much so that employers tell me it is hard to find qualified workers. We need to double down on our commitment to make sure we provide people access to the education and training they need to qualify for the new, high-paying jobs that exist. But, simply, those jobs can't always be filled because there are not enough trained workers to perform them.

It is not just the economy that deserves our mention. One of the most significant things that the Trump administration has done is nominate and see the Senate confirm a record number of judges--judges who, by the way, are committed to faithfully interpreting the Constitution and not legislating from the bench because of their personal preferences.

If you want to pursue a personal agenda or political agenda, you ought to run for Congress, not seek the Federal bench. We expect and demand

something different out of judges, which is faithful adherence to the law, not imposing their personal policy preferences. That is what President Trump has prioritized in his nominees and the nominees we have confirmed.

Twenty-one circuit court judges have been confirmed so far. That is roughly one-eighth of the appeals court judges in the United States. These circuit courts hear appeals from Federal district courts, trial courts, and, as the Presiding Officer knows, set binding precedent on a wide range of issues. I like to say that for all practical purposes, the circuit courts are the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court of the United States hears roughly 80 cases a year. They obviously set the precedent, but there are a lot of cases that never reach the Supreme Court, and their final court of last resort is the circuit court. That means the men and women presiding over those courts--the way they approach their judicial decision making--is making a real difference.

As I said, with the help of the Senate, President Trump has secured confirmation for 21 circuit court nominees. It is worth pointing out that President Obama's 21st circuit court nominee was not confirmed until he was in office for 33 months. It is not just that we are confirming good judges; it is that we are doing so at a good clip, comparatively speaking.

These judges include people like Don Willett, former justice of the Texas Supreme Court; Jim Ho, the former Texas solicitor general; and soon, Andy Oldham, the general counsel to Governor Greg Abbott, who has been nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

That is not to mention the very talented district court judges we have confirmed as well. Two of them, Karen Scholer and David Counts, are Texans, and both my State and the entire Federal judiciary are lucky to have them.

The third thing I want to mention in terms of the economy is regulations because of what we have been able to do, working with the President when it comes to the regulatory state--the bureaucracy, the nameless, faceless entities that make life either easier or more difficult for small businesses. We have had a big impact. Specifically, we have repealed burdensome Obama-era regulations through the Congressional Review Act. It has been said before--and I will say it again--that in all of Senate history, it had been used only one time before; that is, to repeal the ergonomics rule. We have used it 16 times to eliminate agency rules that had found their way into law during the waning hours of the previous administration.

This effort--the Congressional Review Act effort--has been spearheaded by people like the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, among others. It has eliminated rules like coal mining regulation that would have put more than 100,000 jobs at risk and another one enacted by the Department of Education that undermined local control of schools and directly violated a Federal statute at least 7 times.

Our use of the Congressional Review Act has been referred to as a ``regulatory wrecking ball'' and the ``most ambitious regulatory rollback since [President Ronald] Reagan.''

I don't agree it has been a wrecking ball. I think it has been more of a surgical operation. It has provided a signal to businesses, as well as real regulatory relief in those 16 specific cases. I think that is another reason for optimism in the sense that the Federal Government is no longer tying one hand behind the backs of our job creators.

Another important development has been finally rolling back some of the overregulation of Dodd-Frank. You will recall this was legislation that passed following the great meltdown recession of 2008. Like most things that happen in Washington, DC, the pendulum swung way too far.

I tell my community bankers and the credit unions in Texas: You weren't the target, but you were the collateral damage. They didn't cause the great recession of 2008, the subprime mortgage lending crisis; that was the big boys on Wall Street.

Thanks to Senator Crapo and the Banking Committee and a bipartisan effort in the Senate, we finally pulled back some of the overregulation. If small community banks were going to be able to stay in business, they were required to hire people just to fill out the paperwork--not to make more loans but to fill out the paperwork. Many of them couldn't survive at all, so they had to merge or just go away. The people who got hurt the most were the people who needed access to credit--again, our small businesses.

Thankfully, this bill is now expected to pass the House this week, and it will be a big win for smaller financial institutions and make it easier for them to serve their communities by providing mortgages, providing credit, and lending to small businesses.

That is the past. Let's take a peek forward to this next week. This week, we will keep our commitment to our veterans--people who have worn the uniform of the U.S. military and who have served us so well and to whom we have a moral obligation, I believe, to keep our commitments to them--the promises we made to them when they were on Active Duty that when they left Active Duty, we would keep our commitments. We will do that when we vote on the VA MISSION Act this week.

This is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that will make significant reforms to the Department of Veterans Affairs. It will strengthen the healthcare and community care options that are available to America's veterans. It will provide $5.2 billion to the much needed Choice funding program to prevent interruption of access to needed care for veterans.

In other words, we have said: If you are a veteran and can't get to a designated VA healthcare facility--a hospital or clinic--you can get treated in your community by a hospital or other healthcare provider, and we will pay the fee. If you have to wait too long in line, if you have to drive too far, you will have healthcare options. That is why funding the $5.2 billion for the Choice Program is so important.

This bill will also provide caregiver assistance and consolidates the VA's seven community care programs into one streamlined program and will allow veterans, as I said, to seek care when and where it makes the most sense for them.

On the caregiver program, I can't help but remember when I visited Walter Reed, visiting some of our warriors injured in the line of duty in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Frequently, the spouse of a wounded warrior has to quit his or her job to care for their loved one. It is an important aspect of the continuum of care necessary for them to recover and get back on their feet. We are going to provide greater access to caregiver assistance so that spouses and family members can do exactly that. It is the right thing for us to do.

Our VA MISSION bill also authorizes access to walk-in community clinics, removes bureaucratic redtape by authorizing local provider agreements, and eliminates barriers for VA healthcare professionals to practice telemedicine. In this new technological age, it makes no sense to have restrictions on the ability of people to get access to care through telemedicine, when and where appropriate.

I want to conclude by saying that I appreciate Chairman Isakson, Senator Moran, and others working with the President and Acting Director Wilkie to get this done before funding runs out. I appreciate all of our colleagues who have worked on this on a bipartisan basis.

Last week, the House passed the bill, so now it is our turn. What a great sign of appreciation to our veterans it will be to get this bill passed and to the President's desk and have it signed before Memorial Day.

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

Madam President, to my shock and surprise, 10 people were killed Friday in a little town outside of Houston known as Santa Fe, at Santa Fe High School, about 20 miles northwest of Galveston, TX. As we know now, a male student walked into an art class with a pistol and a shotgun that he got from his parents, perhaps without their knowledge. After stashing makeshift explosives elsewhere, he then engaged in a killing spree. The dead included eight students and two teachers. A brave police officer was among the 13 wounded.

When I heard of the shooting, I made plans to immediately go to Santa Fe, where I met with Governor Abbott, Lieutenant Governor Patrick, Senator Cruz, and others, and we spoke to the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the FBI representatives, as well as the Santa Fe Independent School District officials to find out what happened. The families there, of course, remain in shock that something so terrible could happen in their small, tucked away little community--one that was recently shaken by Hurricane Harvey last fall and had previously seemed far removed from the violence that has touched other parts of the country.

As I said last Friday, we have seen this before. Just last fall, we saw a similar story unfold in Sutherland Springs, outside of San Antonio, when a man opened fire at a Sunday church service. Then we saw it in Florida earlier this year at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland. Unfortunately, in recent years there have been plenty of examples--too many examples, actually--with too many lives lost and far too few solutions for families reeling from the aftermath.

There are two things that strike me are clear, though. The first is that we need to better protect our students, secure our schools, and keep weapons out of the hands of those who are a danger to themselves and others. The second thing is to acknowledge that we haven't yet been able to do this effectively. Something is wrong, because these school shootings keep happening.

It is no coincidence that these shootings mostly happen at public schools--or soft targets--and the shooters are usually male teenagers who attended these schools. These young people, I should add, are surrounded by a culture that condemns violence, on one hand, excoriating public officials for not doing more to prevent it, but celebrating violence on television, in movies, and in video games, which at least has the potential to desensitize especially vulnerable young people.

Many proposals on how to address this pervasive problem focus on the guns themselves, not on the individuals who actually use them. They focus on restricting access to guns or banning specific firearm components for even law-abiding citizens. But any proposed fixes must also consider the root nature of the problem; that is, the deranged minds, the twisted rationalizations, and the tragic decisions of the people who commit these terrible acts of violence.

These shooters are obviously incapable of self-regulating their own behavior. How could we possibly address that? That is part of what we need to be thinking about. A gun can kill someone only if a person--a very sick or a very bad person--pulls the trigger.

So what have we done here in Congress to try to respond, as incompletely as I know we have? Well, last year, we introduced a bill called the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act, which was signed by President Obama in 2016. It is part of the answer. It provides more resources for communities and schools and mental health providers to deal with people before they become a danger to themselves or others. But there is more we can do, certainly in that space. The Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center has expanded the use of technology that can help us better utilize telemedicine to reach out to those in a mental health crisis and offer them an alternative course of treatment when they don't otherwise have access. We should consider that and other ideas in the days ahead.

The parents that lost their sons and daughters at Santa Fe High School are obviously still grieving today, and we should be grieving as well, not only for the people who lost their lives but also for the state of our Nation--one that continues to watch its young people self- destruct, engaging in violence that takes the lives of brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, friends, and classmates.

We have been told in recent days that grief and prayers are not enough. I agree. It is not enough to send our condolences to communities like Santa Fe. We need to look the families of the victims in the eyes and say: Here are the concrete steps we have taken and intend to take to make sure something like this never happens again.

I believe we did that earlier this year on a broad, bipartisan basis by passing legislation called the Fix NICS Act. Passing that bill was important because the last time I saw a major shooting in my State, it was at Sutherland Springs, where a man who had been discharged less than honorably from the Air Force for domestic violence convictions fell through the cracks of our background check system. He was able to lie and buy a firearm, even though, under existing law, he was disqualified and prohibited from doing so. But because of the broken background check system, he was able to get away with it. Our Fix NICS Act will help to fix that broken background check system. It was widely supported by Republicans and Democrats. We had 78 cosponsors in the Senate alone, demonstrating that solutions can enjoy broad bipartisan support if they actually make sense as opposed to engaging in ideological battles.

I am glad Congress worked together also to pass the STOP School Violence Act earlier this year, which I was proud to cosponsor. This legislation will help to provide our schools with the tools and resources they need to prevent violence through better equipment, planning, training, safety infrastructure, and law enforcement presence on campus. In this year's appropriations bill, we were able to allocate $75 million to start getting this initiative off the ground.

Now, people wonder: Can we possibly do this? Can we succeed in making our schools a safe place for mothers and fathers to send their children and where they are confident that everything humanly possible is being done to protect them? Well, I am not suggesting that we turn them into an airport, but my colleagues will recall that post-9/11, we have hardened our airports and our Nation's air travel in such a way as to make it virtually impervious to terrorist attacks. I think given the proper

attention, the creative thinking, and the proper resources, we can also come together and make our schools impervious to this sort of attack in the future. If we can do it at our Nation's airports against terrorist attacks, we can do it in our communities and in our local high schools.

Finally--and thank goodness--we have seen the Justice Department prioritize firearm prosecutions with the number of defendants charged with unlawful possession increasing significantly over the past few years. This is because of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has made this a priority, and thank goodness for that. It has long been overdue. U.S. attorneys are now focused on enforcing laws that criminalize gun buyers who lie on their Federal background check. Previously, somebody could come in and lie on the background check, get caught, and nothing would ever happen to them. Now, thanks to the Attorney General and the U.S. attorneys, people are being prosecuted for lying, acting as a further deterrent on people who are felons or otherwise disqualified from legally purchasing firearms. And vehicles like Project Safe Neighborhoods, which the Senate passed unanimously last week, would fund task forces that target serious firearm offenders and get them off the streets.

All of this is a good start, but the shooting in Santa Fe shows we have a long way to go because every one of these shootings seems to be a little bit different.

Obviously, in Sutherland Springs, the failure seemed to be a background check system which allowed the shooter to buy a firearm, lie on the background check system, and not get caught. In places like Las Vegas, the bump stock allowed the person to essentially turn a semiautomatic rifle into an automatic weapon, which was otherwise illegal. We all learned about bump stocks. As an avid shooter and hunter myself, I had never heard about it before. Now the President has taken care of that problem.

We have acted in the wake of Parkland, FL, to try to ensure we get resources to our schools so they can better protect their students and deal with other aspects of this challenge, but we need to be more methodical in figuring out the solutions, then seeing what, if any, solutions would have actually prevented a shooting, and then look to see if those same proposals would have prevented other similar events.

In the case of Santa Fe, we know the shooter was somewhat socially withdrawn, but he was also a high school athlete and involved in his church. He posted troubling pictures and statements on social media, but as Governor Abbott said, he was not your typical troubled youth who people guessed one day might snap.

We also know Santa Fe High School had lockdown drills recently and that police officers were stationed on campus. Both of these likely prevented the event from becoming much worse; so good for them for the lockdown drills and having police officers on campus. We should be grateful for that, even in the wake of so much violence that leaves us with so many unanswered questions.

One of the two officers who rushed in to stop the shooter was John Barnes, who was, himself, shot by the gunman. He is a former Houston police officer who now works for the Santa Fe Independent School District. I am told his heart stopped twice while doctors and paramedics were trying to stem his bleeding, but he is a fighter and he held on. He is now in critical but stable condition in Galveston. We, of course, appreciate him and all other first responders and the other officers who courageously confronted the shooter and saved other lives. We wish Officer Barnes and his entire family the best as he fully recovers from his injury.

Another hero who has emerged, from accounts of the shooting, is Christopher Stone, a 17-year-old junior who, once the shooting started, blocked the classroom door, protecting his fellow students from the gunman. Tragically, when the gunman shot through the door, Christopher Stone was hit, and he did not survive, but we will remember him and all the other lives which were lost this week as we pledge to do better, to work harder, to work together, and to find new ways to protect our schools and our children from harm.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

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

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

Mr. President, I have a request for one committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

subcommittee on airland

The Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, May 21, 2018, at 5 p.m. to hold a hearing.

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

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

Mr. President, yesterday the Senate Intelligence Committee voted Gina Haspel's nomination out favorably by a vote of 10 to 5. It was a strong bipartisan vote. Of course, in just a few minutes, we will vote on her confirmation.

Last week, during her confirmation hearing, she said repeatedly what those of us who had supported her for weeks already knew: She believes that U.S. Government actions must be held to a strict moral standard. If confirmed, she would not obey an order she believed to be unlawful, and in her new role, she pledged not to restart the interrogation programs inside the CIA. Of course, that could not happen without consultation and approval of Congress because the standard has literally changed since the immediate post-9/11 era.

Based on her testimony, her record of service, and her exemplary character, it is clear that the only real option for the Intelligence Committee was to report her out favorably.

Our colleagues on the other side who have objected to this nomination have an opportunity to join a couple of their Members who have already come on over and acknowledged that she is the best qualified nominee in the Agency's history.

Our colleague, the senior Senator from Virginia and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Warner, voted yesterday on Ms. Haspel's behalf. He praised her as an independent voice and found it noteworthy that she would be the first operations officer in more than five decades to lead the Agency.

Generally speaking, you have analysts and you have the case officers who actually handle the cases and do the important intelligence- gathering work from a human intelligence perspective at the Agency, and that is the work she has been involved in for more than 30 years. She would be the first officer in more than five decades to have that sort of experience and the credibility that goes along with it.

The senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, is joined by the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Manchin, who also sits on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the junior Senator from North Dakota and others. In other words, there are a number of Democrats now who have decided that it is not in the Nation's best interest to oppose President Trump's nominees just because they happen to be President Trump's nominees.

Now I want to talk about some of the stated objections and why I don't believe they hold any water, but I am glad for this movement in the right direction, which will allow us to confirm her today.

I appreciate all of our colleagues carefully examining Ms. Haspel's records. A number of people I have talked to about the nomination said they wanted to do their due diligence. Well, that is our job, and I don't believe any nominee should be rubberstamped. I know they have reviewed her record, and they have met

with her in person and drawn the only reasonable conclusion, I believe, which is that she is well qualified; that she loves the CIA, where she has worked for more than three decades; and that she will provide the Agency's objective, unbiased, and unvarnished intelligence to the President and other policymakers in the Federal Government.

Her loyalty, of course, is not to a political party, after all, because she is nonpartisan, but she owes her loyalty to the American people, whose safety and security she has made her life's work.

Comparisons have rightfully been drawn between the upcoming confirmation vote for Ms. Haspel and the 2013 confirmation vote of John Brennan, former Director of the CIA under President Obama. The vast majority of Democrats had no problem voting for Mr. Brennan, and so I believe they should have no problem voting for Ms. Haspel because, first of all, Mr. Brennan supports her. Of course, he was the No. 4 person at the CIA during this period post-9/11 when the rendition, detention, and interrogation programs were carried out in full compliance with then-stated law from the highest legal authority available, the Office of Legal Counsel. We have also seen others in the Obama administration support Ms. Haspel as well.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: Those people who know Ms. Haspel best, who have worked alongside of her on a daily basis in undisclosed locations around the world, doing the Nation's important work, like this woman, admire her, respect her, and think she is the best of the best.

I speak for many when I say that we appreciate Ms. Haspel's willingness and desire to serve in this new and never-easy capacity. I hope we can confirm her in short order so she can get back to work and continue to do the work that she loves and that our Nation needs.

I yield the floor.