Floor Statements

I withhold my request.

Mr. President, I send a question to the desk directed at both sides.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following op-ed be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 811, and I ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, before this coronavirus pandemic hit this country, our economy was booming. Jobs were soaring. Over the last year, our country has suffered tens of millions of job losses.

This amendment creates a point of order against any legislation that would increase legal immigration until we return to where we were before this pandemic.

I believe in legal immigration. We are a country built by immigrants, but legal immigration is meant to serve the American economy, meant to benefit this country and American workers, and I do not believe we should be significantly increasing legal immigration at a time when tens of millions of Americans are out of work.

So this amendment is designed to say: Let's put American workers first. When American workers go back to work, then we can discuss and consider legislation to increase legal immigration, but we shouldn't do so until the tens of millions of Americans who have lost their jobs return to work.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of the applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all the applicable sections of the act and the applicable budget resolutions for purposes of amendment 811, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 871 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, this amendment is designed to provide relief to the tens of thousands of blue collar workers that work in refineries across this country. Refineries right now purchase what are called RINs, which are artificial regulatory licenses that they must purchase. They were originally designed to be at 1 or 2 cents apiece. In the past year, they have skyrocketed. In the past year, RINs have skyrocketed up to $1.12 apiece, the highest level since 2013. That is a 650-percent increase in the past year. Just a year ago they were trading at 15 cents. What does that mean? That means $15 billion in regulatory cost for refineries.

And let me say something importantly: Not one penny of that $15 billion goes to corn farmers or ethanol producers. It goes to Wall Street speculators. So this amendment would provide--it would cap RINs at 10 cents apiece. What that would mean is this is a choice between do you want millions of dollars to go to Wall Street speculators or do you want the money to go to blue collar workers and refineries?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I rise today to honor the life of a dear friend and a former colleague of mine, Jerry Ellig.

Some 2 weeks ago, at just 58 years old, Jerry passed away. Jerry and I met in June of 2001. We were both working in the George W. Bush administration. We were working together at the Federal Trade Commission. I had just been hired, at all of 30 years old, to run the Policy Planning Office, and Jerry was my Deputy.

I hadn't met Jerry. Our boss Tim Muris, the Chairman, had brought Jerry in beforehand. It is always a dangerous thing when somebody else hires your Deputy, but in this case, Tim did me an enormous favor. Jerry was a colleague of Tim's from George Mason University, a Ph.D. economist, a brilliant man, a lover of liberty. And Jerry and I, for the next 2 years, ran the Policy Planning Office together, and we became dear friends.

I don't know that I ever saw Jerry without a smile, without a twinkle in his eye. He always had a joyful spirit, a mischievous grin. And he believed in the power of truth. He became an economist because, I think, Jerry was born to be an economist. I have no doubt playing with his LEGOs as a child, he

thought about supply and demand and price elasticity. And he believed in the power of free markets.

One of the things that the Policy Planning Office did was something called competition advocacy. Now, the FTC statutory mandate is to defend the competition. There are some 75 Ph.D. economists on the full- time staff at the FTC. And Jerry and I, together, when various State legislatures or State regulatory bodies across the country were considering a particular bill that would have potentially anti- competitive effects--if those State legislatures or regulators asked for our input, the FTC would analyze the proposed bill, and we would file testimony, written testimony, oral testimony. Both Jerry and I testified multiple places. In fact, I went to my office and pulled out the binder of all the competition advocacy that we filed in our time together at the FTC on topic after topic after topic.

You know, there are a lot of bad ideas that government considers, bad ideas that come from special pleaders--someone who will benefit--but the harm to consumers is usually diffuse, harder to see, and much greater.

And what the FTC would do in competition advocacy is simply quantify the harm, simply provide truth and light and sunshine. It was incredible that when we would be asked to come in and present that testimony over and over and over again, the decision makers would choose not to adopt bad policies, simply when they understood, through careful empirical analysis, how that would hurt the consumers.

One area, in particular, that Jerry and I worked on quite a bit was e-commerce. We started an e-commerce task force. This was 20 years ago. E-commerce was in a much more nascent stage 20 years ago than it is today. We examined 10 different industries, every one of which there were barriers to entry. The existing bricks and mortar suppliers would go to their State regulators and seek to erect barriers to entry to stop new e-commerce entrants from competing and driving down prices.

Actually, much of the impetus for the entire e-commerce task force came from a white paper that the Presiding Officer will be interested to know where this white paper came from. It was the Democratic Leadership Council, a centrist Democrat group that had written a white paper entitled ``Revenge of the Dissenter Mediated.'' And it talked about all these industries where e-commerce was benefiting consumers but entrenched interests were fighting against it.

Jerry and I, together at the FTC, we convened 3 days of public hearings of 10 different industries--contact lenses, telemedicine, education, funerals and caskets, wine.

It was interesting. At the end of the hearings, we prepared a series of reports. Every single industry panel--all 10 of the ones who testified--at least 1 of the witnesses said some variance of the following: You know, I have looked at the anti-competitive restraints in these other nine industries, and those are terrible. Those are clearly hurting consumers, but our industry is different.

One of the industries we looked at that Jerry took a particular passion for was wine. There were, at the time, extensive restrictions on direct shipment of wine--shipment across State lines, shipment to your home. It was heavily, heavily regulated, and the wholesalers did not want to see that change. We began studying and working on what would become a wine report. It is over 100 pages long of empirical study on what that was doing. We concluded that for consumers, it was driving up costs dramatically, not just a little bit but dramatically.

I will tell you, Jerry took great joy in traveling through Northern Virginia, going to wineries, sampling the wine--I will say, he enjoyed that process of it as well--but collecting empirical price data.

At the time, numerous arguments were raised as to why you should not allow the direct shipping of wine. One was that it would lead to minors drinking too much. I have to admit, Jerry and I laughed about that because I don't know that I have ever known a 15-year-old who wanted a nice, perky chardonnay. If you were dealing with home keg deliveries, that I will concede would raise an issue, but wine connoisseurs does not match any teenagers I have known.

But we decided, well, rather than argue about it theoretically, let's find out. So we sent a letter to the alcohol control boards in each of the States that allowed direct shipment. We asked them a very simple question: Have you seen any problem? Have you encountered any problems with underage drinking as a result of this policy? And lo and behold, they all wrote back and said: No, we haven't seen it at all. It hasn't produced any of that. All that cam together in a report detailing the harm to consumers that came from these restrictions.

I will tell you, just a couple of years later, the U.S. Supreme Court took up a case challenging those restrictions on the interstate sale of wine, striking them down, so that now you or I, if we want to order a bottle of wine for our home, we can go and do it on our phone and get it delivered at our home. The Supreme Court decision striking that down cited that wine report that Jerry and I had done more than a dozen times. As I said, Jerry believed in the power of truth, the power of facts, simply shining a light: This is hurting people.

Jerry also took joy in that project. You know, Jerry was a fan of tiki cocktails and mixology and all of tiki culture, for that matter. He would proudly wear Hawaiian shirts--loud Hawaiian shirts that his daughter Kat had picked out for him. And he would wear them with the smile and joy he brought every day.

He also made some of his own wine. For several years, Heidi and I enjoyed a bottle of cherry port that Jerry had made. He wasn't at risk of suddenly going into the winery business, but it was still, nonetheless, an enjoyable bottle of cherry port.

Another project Jerry undertook at the FTC was examining education and school choice. I sat down with Jerry and another Ph.D. economist at the FTC, and we talked about school choice. And I asked the two of them, Jerry and Ken, I said: Let's examine the arguments that are raised against school choice. The most significant argument raised against school choice is that school choice will destroy the public schools; that it will harm the public schools if you give low-income kids access to scholarships. We sat down and said: All right, let's treat that argument seriously. Let's not dismiss that out of hand. Let's treat it seriously because if it were true, I would oppose school choice. That is a serious reason to oppose it. Let's find out if it is true.

Jerry and Ken, as economists are want to do, they framed the problem more broadly. They said: What is the impact in a regulated monopoly or oligopoly when competition is introduced and, in particular, what is the impact on quality for the customers who remain with the incumbent providers, not the folks who go to the new entrants but the customers that just remain with the incumbent provider? They went through and they examined multiple other industries that had been regulated monopolies or oligopolies and for which there were abundant data.

They looked at telecom; they looked at airlines; they looked at surface freight transportation. And as they detailed in each instance, when competition came in, quality went up. Competition was good. They then examined every empirical study that had been done to date of school choice programs that had been implemented across the country. They found that, unsurprisingly, again, that competition was good-- something we have seen in the two decades since; that when kids get options and competition is brought in and scholarships are available, that the quality of education in struggling public schools gets better and better and better. That article was published: ``Competition and quality in deregulated industries: Lessons for the education debate.'' It is another example of how Jerry recognized that facts, that reason can be powerful.

When I left the FTC, Jerry went on to take over the Office of Policy Planning. He led that office of lawyers and economists who loved Jerry, loved his principles, loved his drive, loved his warmth, loved his humor. He was a professor for decades, beloved by his students.

He spent decades at Mercatus studying regulations, studying the impact of

overregulation, analyzing it. He just finished his tenure as the Chief Economist at the Federal Communications Commission. He was a brilliant guy.

When he passed 2 weeks ago--an untimely death--talented economists from governments and the academy mourned Jerry, writing touching words. And in Discourse Magazine, published by the Mercatus Center, Ajit Pai, Chairman of the FTC, for whom Jerry worked as Chief Economist, wrote that he would always remember Jerry's warm smile.

Jerry would always start off the conversation with a warm

smile, which would put everyone at ease. He would then

explain in a collegial tone how he thought we should

proceed--wisdom that always informed our ultimate decisions.

Smiling and speaking gently are small things, perhaps; but at

a time when the currency of public policy discourse is too

often pounding the table, Jerry's approach was memorable.

He loved his work. He loved economics. He loved free markets. And he loved his family. Jerry was blessed with an incredible wife Sandy, who is a dear friend as well; their daughter Kat, whom they adore--an incredible loving, fun family. You know, when they were on road trips, Jerry would eat grilled cheese sandwiches made by his daughter in a toaster oven in the car because he loved Kat so much.

Jerry, like myself, is also a big fan of the movie ``The Princess Bride.'' Jerry's death so early is inconceivable.

God bless the memory of Dr. Jerry Ellig. God bless the Ellig family.

In Heaven, the lion lies down with the lamb and, Jerry, may there be no transaction costs and may the Coase theorem fully operate.

We love you, and we miss you, Jerry. God bless you.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 became public law on January 1, 2021, and included reforms to the U.S. Agency for Global Media outlined in section 1299Q. The FY21 consolidated appropriations act became public law on December 27, 2020, and included language that would have delayed those reforms had they already been in law, but they were not. Reserving any concerns about the lawfulness of insulating Senate-confirmed officers from removal, I believe it is Congress's intent that these two provisions should not be understood concurrently and that the reforms outlined in section 1299Q shall take effect on the date of enactment of the fiscal year 2021 NDAA.

Mr. President, we gather together at a moment of great division, at a moment of great passion. We have seen and, no doubt, will continue to see a great deal of moralizing from both sides of the aisle, but I would urge to both sides perhaps a bit less certitude and a bit more recognition that we are gathered at a time when democracy is in crisis.

Recent polling shows that 39 percent of Americans believe the election that just occurred ``was rigged.'' You may not agree with that assessment, but it is, nonetheless, a reality for nearly half the country.

I would note it is not just Republicans who believe that. Thirty-one percent of Independents agree with that statement. Seventeen percent of Democrats believe the election was rigged. Even if you do not share that conviction, it is the responsibility, I believe, of this office to acknowledge that is a profound threat to this country and to the legitimacy of any administrations that will come in the future.

I want to take a moment to speak to my Democratic colleagues. I understand. Your guy is winning right now. If Democrats vote as a bloc, Joe Biden will almost certainly be certified as the next President of the United States.

I want to speak to the Republicans who are considering voting against these objections. I understand your concerns, but I urge you to pause and think: What does it say to the nearly half the country that believes this election was rigged if we vote not even to consider the claims of illegality and fraud in this election?

And I believe there is a better way. The leaders just spoke about setting aside the election. Let me be clear. I am not arguing for setting aside the result of this election. All of us are faced with two choices, both of which are lousy. One choice is vote against the objection, and tens of millions of Americans will see a vote against the objection as a statement that voter fraud doesn't matter, isn't real, and shouldn't be taken seriously. And a great many of us don't believe that.

On the other hand, most, if not all, of us believe we should not set aside the results of an election just because our candidate may not have prevailed. So I endeavored to look for door No. 3, a third option, and for that I looked to history, to the precedent of the 1876 election, the Hayes-Tilden election, where this Congress appointed an electoral commission to examine claims of voter fraud.

Five House Members, five Senators, five Supreme Court Justices examined the evidence and rendered a judgment. What I would urge of this body is that we do the same; that we appoint an electoral commission to conduct a 10-day emergency audit, consider the evidence, and resolve the claims.

For those in the Democratic aisle who say there is no evidence, they have been rejected, then you should rest in comfort. If that is the case, an electoral commission would reject those claims.

But for those who respect the voters, simply telling the voters, ``Go jump in a lake; the fact that you have deep concerns is of no moment to us,'' that jeopardizes, I believe, the legitimacy of this and subsequent elections.

The Constitution gives to Congress the responsibility this day to count the votes. The Framers knew what they were doing when they gave responsibilities to Congress. We have a responsibility, and I would urge that we follow the precedent of 1877. The Electoral Count Act explicitly allows objections such as this one for votes that were not regularly given.

Let me be clear. This objection is for the State of Arizona, but it is broader than that. It is an objection for all six of the contested States to have a credible, objective, impartial body hear the evidence and make a conclusive determination. That would benefit both sides. That would improve the legitimacy of this election.

So let me urge my colleagues: All of us take our responsibility seriously. I would urge my colleagues: Don't take, perhaps, the easy path, but, instead, act together. Astonish the viewers and act in a bipartisan sense to say we will have a credible and fair tribunal, consider the claims, consider the facts, consider the evidence, and make a conclusive determination whether and to what extent this election complied with the Constitution and with Federal law.

Mr. President, I rise to address one of the most pressing crises the American people are facing today. Our refusal to address the border crisis is inexcusable.

Right now, Texas and other border States are being overwhelmed by thousands upon thousands of illegal immigrants who are flooding into small communities monthly. The inaction of the U.S. Congress leaves these communities responsible for paying for where these illegal immigrants will stay, for how they will receive medical care, and for where they will go when they are released.

From Brownsville to McAllen, to Laredo to Eagle Pass, to Del Rio, to El Paso, and beyond, Texas communities are at their breaking point in terms of resources and manpower in dealing with this crisis. I am hearing from elected officials throughout South Texas--Democrats and Republicans--that the crisis has reached a breaking point.

Our hard-working Border Patrol agents are also struggling with the enormous influx of illegal immigrants. It has been reported that there are now more illegal immigrants in custody than Border Patrol agents on the southern border and thousands more being apprehended daily.

Since last October, over half a million illegal immigrants have been apprehended at our southern border, many of them having traveled through Mexico from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Over 200,000 of these illegal immigrants were single adults, and over 56,000 of them were unaccompanied children.

During this time, the Border Patrol also apprehended nearly 700 gang members trying to illegally enter the United States. In the month of May alone, the Border Patrol apprehended over 144,000 people coming through the southern border--144,000 in a single month. If that pace were to continue for a year, we would be looking at nearly 2 million apprehensions in just 1 year. That is a staggering number of illegal immigrants for Texas and other border States to take in.

Instead of acknowledging that this crisis exists, instead of doing the responsible thing and taking action, congressional Democrats instead have stubbornly clung to open-border fantasies. Speaker Pelosi has called the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants coming through our border a ``manufactured crisis.'' Some of our colleagues on the Presidential trail have called it a ``fake crisis'' and ``fearmongering of the worst kind'' or have said that climate change is a more serious crisis. All I can tell them

is to go to the border. The crisis at the border is very real, despite what the Democratic talking points say.

Last week, I visited the Rio Grande Valley, as I have done many times in representing the State of Texas in the Senate. I have toured the Rio Grande Valley Centralized Processing Center, the largest immigration processing center in the United States. I also traveled to Rincon Village, which is ground zero for illegal border crossings near Mission, TX. What I saw there was staggering. When I was in the Rio Grande Valley, the RGV Sector Chief told me that in 2014, just 5 years ago, roughly 2 percent of single adult men crossing illegally into the Rio Grande Valley had a child with them. Today that number is roughly 50 percent. It went from 2 percent all the way up to 50 percent. The word is out among traffickers, among smugglers, among others seeking to illegally enter the United States that coming with a child is a get- out-of-jail-free pass. According to the Border Patrol, family unit apprehensions have increased by 463 percent since last year, with increases of 2,100 percent in El Paso and 1,034 percent in Del Rio.

I also learned of a recent pilot program that used rapid DNA tests to discover whether these family units were real. Nearly 30 percent were found to be fraudulent in the Rio Grande Valley. In other words, the adults bringing kids into the United States illegally weren't related to the children.

One of the most tragic elements of the crisis is the number of children who are being trafficked, who are being physically abused, sexually abused, and neglected. Often they are being used as pawns.

That is not all. In the Rio Grande Valley, 60 percent of Border Patrol Agents are now helping to process and care for children and family units. That means only 40 percent are dedicated to border security. More than half the Border Patrol agents in our Nation's busiest crossing point for illegal immigrants are not on the border stopping narcotics traffickers and stopping human traffickers because they are instead changing diapers. Instead, they are caring for children because the volume is so massive.

Just recently, the Rio Grande Valley Sector canceled their horseback patrol because they lacked the manpower because they are instead caring for the massive influx of illegal immigrants. On average, they make 30 trips to the hospital a day. On average, in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, one child is born each day to an illegal immigrant who has come over. Last week, 12 people died.

This is a crisis. By refusing to address our border crisis, we invite child smuggling and child abuse. That is shameful, and that is a tragedy. We know how many illegal immigrants are being apprehended. We know more and more illegal immigrants are trying to get into our country, and we know Border Patrol doesn't have the manpower or the resources to handle a humanitarian crisis of this scale. It is a fact, and it is a reality that our Democratic colleagues need to face.

Nobody who is compassionate, nobody who wants to be virtuous, nobody who cares about other human beings would want to perpetuate what is happening at the border for even a single day. We should be angry. We should be angry at politicians who say this is a made-up crisis. We should be angry at politicians who keep the loopholes in place that ensure that more and more children--more and more little boys and girls--will be abused at the hands of human smugglers.

While the passage of the $4.5 billion border supplemental bill a few weeks ago was a good first step, Democrats in Congress need to finally do their job and work with Republicans and work with President Trump to secure our border. We need to build a wall. We need to enforce immigration laws already on the books. We need to reform our amnesty laws to prevent asylum abuse, and we need to support the brave men and women of the Border Patrol with all the resources they need to effectively secure the border.

I have introduced legislation to secure the border using the billions from El Chapo's criminal fortune that the Department of Justice is seeking to have criminally forfeited and use El Chapo's ill-gotten goods and those of other drug lords to build the wall. The EL CHAPO Act would reserve any amounts criminally forfeited to the Federal Government as a result of criminal prosecution of El Chapo or other drug kingpins for the building of a border wall and other border security assets.

I am also a cosponsor of the WALL Act, which would fully fund the border wall by closing existing loopholes that provide illegal immigrants with Federal benefits and tax credits, all without affecting the benefits and tax credits used by American citizens.

These bills are just two commonsense ways to secure the border. Everyone should support taking money away from murderers, from drug smugglers, and from human traffickers such as El Chapo and using it to prevent murder, drug smuggling, and human trafficking--all without costing American taxpayers even a dime or adding anything to the Federal deficit.

We also need more judges. We need to close the loopholes in our asylum system. Right now, immigration courts have a backlog of about 900,000 pending cases--nearly a million. Increasing the number of immigration judges and providing an expedited process for asylum claims is necessary so migrants who don't qualify for asylum can be quickly returned to their home countries rather than released into the United States.

These reforms are necessary, and they need to happen. We know how to solve this problem. We don't have to ask theoretically because we have seen it happen specifically. In the first 6 months of 2017, right after President Trump was elected and sworn into office, illegal immigration dropped nearly 70 percent. It plummeted. I remember going back down to the valley in early 2017 and asking the Border Patrol agents: Why did the illegal crossings drop? We hadn't built a wall yet. We hadn't hired new Border Patrol agents. What changed? What those Border Patrol agents told me was the only thing that changed is the human smugglers, the traffickers, now believed there was an administration in office that would enforce the law that would deport them if they came here illegally. That one change--the traffickers believing the administration would send them home--dropped illegal immigration 70 percent.

Then what happened? Why did we see this enormous deluge we are seeing right now? Well, the answer is the Congress put loopholes in the law that mandate the release of children. In a short timeframe, and under a court decision called the Flores decision, adults with a child get released as well. That process is what is known as catch and release. It means someone who is apprehended is given a court date some months or years into the future and then are let go on the hope that they will magically show up. Far too many of them don't show up.

What happened in the summer of 2017 was illegal immigrants would pick up the phone and call their friends or family back home and say: The policy hasn't changed. They still let us go. We still get to stay. There are still no consequences. Come on over.

Even worse than that, smugglers learned that bringing a child is the ticket to crossing illegally into this country. There was a portion of the detention facility I saw in the valley that the officers refer to as ``daddy daycare'' because it was simply filled with young single men who had little kids with them. Five years ago, 2 percent of single men had kids. Today, 50 percent of single men have kids because if you grab a little boy or a little girl, you can come over. I will tell you because of the loopholes Congress has put in place, Border Patrol has been forced to release people who are convicted murderers, forced to release people who are convicted pedophiles, forced to release adults with sexual assault convictions and children in their custody. Why? Because it is so expedited that by the time they find out about the convictions, they have been forced to release them already.

This is cruel. It is inhumane. When the rapid DNA testing is showing that nearly 30 percent of the adults are not related to the kids, it explains why we are hearing more and more reports of children being rented or sold by the cartels.

This has to stop--the political posturing from the Democrats who are running for President and the Democrats in Congress who are refusing to

solve this problem. It is past time for those games. It is time to solve this crisis.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, I would like to thank Senator Kaine for joining with me in introducing what should hopefully be a simple but crucially important matter for the Senate--to issue an unequivocal, direct, and clear condemnation of all forms of anti-Semitism.

Unfortunately, we are living in an era where the need for a strong and clear condemnation of anti-Semitism has become acute. We are in the midst of a wave of anti-Semitism seen both here in the United States and all over the world.

In just the last few years, we have seen repeated anti-Semitic comments made publicly, including insinuations questioning the loyalty and the patriotism of American Jews. We have seen physical violence against Jews, including shootings in Jewish places of worship, such as the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh and the Chabad of Poway. We have seen a wave of physical attacks against Jews in the streets of New York. And we have seen the growth on our college campuses of movements to aggressively boycott products made by Jews in Israel.

As we have learned this week, things have gotten so bad that the New York Times has announced it will simply stop running political cartoons in their international edition after being criticized and forced to apologize for recently running a blatantly anti-Semitic cartoon.

This resolution was also prompted, unfortunately, by the inability of the House of Representatives to come together and vote on a resolution straightforwardly and directly condemning anti-Semitism.

Too many in political life have given in to the extremes, including the embrace of boycotts and at times outright hatred for Israel, the world's only Jewish state.

So when the House tried to condemn anti-Semitism, sadly, they were instead forced to water it down into a general resolution decrying bigotry of all sorts, listing every group they could think of.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with condemning bigotry and hatred in general, but anti-Semitism is a unique prejudice with a unique history that has led to unique horrors throughout history.

Jews today are the most targeted religious group in the United States for hate crimes, according to the data compiled by the FBI. We need to be able to acknowledge that clearly and directly, and that is what this resolution does.

This resolution outlines how ancient forms of anti-Semitism continue to live on today. It emphasizes that anti-Semitism is a unique form of prejudice stretching back millennia, and it condemns the modern form of those ancient prejudices. It talks about how, for centuries, anti- Semitism has included exactly what we are seeing here today, including physical attacks against Jews, attacks on the loyalty of Jews, accusations of dual loyalty, campaigns to boycott, to confiscate, or to destroy Jewish businesses, and accusations that Jews use money to purchase political power. These are all false and vicious slurs.

This resolution also speaks to the unique prejudice Jews here in America experience, which we must acknowledge. I would like to read one clause in particular in the resolution: ``[I]n the United States, Jews have suffered from systematic discrimination in the form of exclusion from homeownership in certain neighborhoods, prohibition from staying in certain hotels, restrictions upon membership in private clubs and other associations, limitations upon admission to certain educational institutions and other barriers to equal justice under the law.''

This is a shameful legacy, and it makes it all the more incumbent that we in the Senate speak in one voice and stand resolved that the U.S. Senate condemns and commits to combating all forms of anti- Semitism.

This bipartisan resolution has 56 cosponsors, including 14 Democratic Senators. I am particularly grateful to Senator Kaine for his leadership, which has been pivotal in bringing us together to speak united with one clear voice, and I am hopeful that just moments from now the Senate will come together and pass a clear denunciation of anti-Semitism, 100 to 0, so that we are clearly understood and clearly heard.

With that, I yield to my friend Senator Kaine.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Virginia for his powerful and eloquent remarks decrying anti-Semitism and implore all of us to stand united with one clear bipartisan voice, Democrats and Republicans all on the same page, 100 to 0, saying that anti-Semitism has no place in the United States of America.

With that, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 189.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Thank you.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I am proud to recognize BG Erik H. Torring III, who is retiring after 30 years in the U.S. Army. General Torring has been a leader in not only our soldiers' health, but the health of all the service animals that support our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines on the battlefield.

General Torring's career culminated in his current post as both Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations in the Army's Office of the Surgeon General and Chief of the U.S. Army Veterinary Corps, where he oversees the recruitment, training, and equipment of almost 3,000 veterinary personnel in the U.S. Army. He spearheaded the development of the Army's electronic veterinary records program and maintained standards for food safety across the Armed Forces.

For his service to the United States of America, I am proud to recognize Brigadier General Torring and welcome him home to Texas.

Mr. President, I rise today to give voice to a town in Texas. It is a small town of about 14,000 people. In that town there is a high school, a school of about 1,500 students. One year ago, on May 18, a deeply disturbed and deranged student committed an unspeakable act of evil which shook Santa Fe, shook Texas, and shook the entire country. It left our Nation weeping.

Just before 8 in the morning, the shooter began firing weapons into classrooms and through doors where his fellow students were taking shelter.

Within minutes, the attacker senselessly murdered 8 students and 2 teachers. Their names are the following: Jared Conard Black, Christian Riley Garcia, Shana Fisher, Aaron Kyle McLeod, Glenda Ann Perkins,

Angelique Ramirez, Sabika Sheikh, Christopher Stone, Cynthia Tisdale, and Kimberly Vaughan.

I would like us to pause for a moment of silence as we remember these brave souls.

Their names will live on. Their killer's name will not. His name is never worth mentioning again.

Thirteen others were also brutally wounded, including three substitute teachers. Flo Rice, one of the substitute teachers at the high school that day, was shot five times. I have gotten to know Flo and her husband Scott well in the weeks and months since the shooting.

But that day was not merely a day of great tragedy. It was also a day of incredible bravery. Santa Fe police officers did their duty and swiftly engaged the shooter. One of those police officers, John Barnes, was critically wounded in the process. They shot back, and, ultimately, they took the coward into custody.

Santa Fe students also proved themselves to be heroes. One of them, Riley Garcia, made the ultimate sacrifice. He held a door shut to give other students time to escape, and he was killed in the process. Other students tended to the wounded and to each other.

In the wake of the shooting, Texans grieved with the families and friends of those we lost. We heard stories of terror and stories of hope.

I was at my home in Houston that morning. Santa Fe High School is about 45 minutes away from my house. When I got the call as to what was happening, I jumped into a truck and headed down there. I spent the entire day with families who had lost their children, with first responders, with teachers, with school leaders, with a community that was grieving mightily. But in Santa Fe, I also saw a boundless spirit and hope and unity.

I remember that afternoon, traveling to the hospital and visiting with a number of the students who had been shot and wounded that day. I remember meeting Clayton, a young man who had been shot just that morning. He had pins in his arm from being shot twice. Clayton described how he jumped over the fence, even after having been shot, and his friends helped to carry him to safety. This young man described how he is a bull rider and a pole vaulter. I asked him if he is a lefty or righty. He said he is a lefty, and that was the arm that was wounded. But he said with a smile: ``You know, now I gotta learn to ride a bull with my right arm.'' That is the toughness and the spirit of these students and their entire community.

All across Texas and all across the country, millions of Americans lifted those children and lifted those families up in prayer. You know, it has become politically fashionable now to deride thoughts and prayers. To suggest that thoughts and prayers are not appropriate, I will say this: We should always lift up in prayer those who are victimized by violence, by brutality, by terrorism, by murder. I believe in the power of prayer, and I will tell you that the community of Santa Fe leaned on the power of prayer in the wake of that tragedy.

Now, thoughts and prayers are not themselves a substitute for action. In the days and the weeks that followed, I met with mothers and fathers and teachers and students. I hosted Santa Fe students here in the Senate Dining Room. We talked with law enforcement and with first responders. I sat down with the President, and he traveled down to meet with the Santa Fe families. I participated in a roundtable with Governor Abbott, families from Santa Fe and other communities victimized by violence, and officials at the Federal, State, and local levels. We discussed how we could do a better job of protecting our schools and protecting our children. We have lost too many kids to homicidal action, and it has to stop.

We have to do much more to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and to better treat the mentally ill--all while preserving and protecting our constitutional rights.

There was a universal agreement in the wake of Santa Fe that, as a State and as a Nation, we had to see justice done and to take every step to try to ensure that such an attack never occurs again.

Soon after, I was gratified to hear that the Department of Education announced $1 million in Federal funds for the Santa Fe Independent School District through Project School Emergency Response to Violence, or Project SERV. It is a crucial first step in Federal funding to help the Santa Fe school community to recover and protect all its students, but the story doesn't end there.

In addition to a State prosecution, most of us assumed there would be a Federal case against the Santa Fe shooter, as well, because his massive assault was on students and teachers in a public school, and, crucially, because authorities found explosive devices on the school grounds and off campus, including pipe bombs and a Molotov cocktail. To any reasonable observer, this would open the case to Federal explosives and terrorism charges.

All of us were committed to seeing the attacker prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Early press reports, however, indicated that Federal authorities were not going to proceed with the Federal case. Those press reports dismayed me--dismayed many--in particular because the shooter was under 18 at the time of the massacre, which means it is likely that the maximum State sentence he would receive is 40 years, which means that, if only State charges were brought, the shooter would be potentially eligible for release at 57 years old. Releasing this mass murderer into society would not be just, and it would not be right.

Thankfully, Attorney General Barr agreed, and it has been publicly reported now that Federal charges have come forward to ensure that this attacker is brought to justice and faces the full consequences for the horrific acts of that morning.

(The remarks of Senator Cruz pertaining to the submission of S. 1442 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as we pause this week to remember the 10 people who lost their lives and the 13 people who were wounded 1 year ago, we should reflect on what has changed but also on what still needs to be done to stop this epidemic of mass shootings and school shootings, in particular.

Last year I was very proud that Congress authorized nearly $1 billion in school safety funding--legislation that I was a cosponsor of. That is nearly $1 billion that schools can use to improve school safety, including hardening doors so that shooters can't shoot through the school doors anymore, shrinking the number of entrances and exits, installing metal detectors, and hiring armed police officers to keep our kids safe. That was an important first step, but we need to do more.

That is why I am reintroducing this week two important bills. First, I am reintroducing legislation to authorize more funding for school safety and to enable greater targeting of the felons and fugitives who try to buy firearms illegally. If a felon or fugitive tries to purchase a firearm illegally, that felon or fugitive should be prosecuted and they should be put in Federal jail.

In 2013, my first year in the Senate, I introduced legislation with my friend Senator Grassley from Iowa to create a gun crime task force at the Federal Department of Justice to ensure that Federal convictions are in the national database and to direct the Department of Justice to prosecute the felons and fugitives who try to illegally buy guns and to put them in jail before they can take the lives of more innocents. Sadly, cynically, Senate Democrats filibustered that legislation. They prevented it from passing into law by demanding a 60-vote threshold.

In light of the tragedies of Santa Fe, Parkland, and Highlands Ranch High School, just last week, I urge my colleagues to join me in making this commonsense bill law in this Congress. Let's direct law enforcement resources to stop violent criminals before they commit more heinous murders.

I am also reintroducing the bipartisan School Security Enhancement Act with Democratic Senator Doug Jones, which would allow local communities to utilize student support and academic enrichment grants to reinforce school safety infrastructure and technology. Installing metal detectors, bulletproof doors and windows, and establishing an efficient system for communicating important information to law enforcement and to parents are all important steps in improving school safety.

I hope we can join together and pass these bills so that our students are safer, and so we can do more to prevent future mass shootings.

What happened in Santa Fe a year ago was a tragedy. On the night of the shooting, there was a candlelight prayer vigil in the community at a public park in downtown Santa Fe. Even as you saw families grieving and in unspeakable agony, and their hearts breaking, you also saw people coming together. When I was at the vigil that night, as you wept and mourned with students and parents experiencing the ultimate agony, you saw at the same time students and parents in the community leaning on each other, holding each other, holding each other up, praying alongside each other, praying with each other, and giving thanks for the heroism and strength. I think that is the only way a community makes it out of a tragedy like that.

The last year has been an extremely difficult year for the Santa Fe families and the community. That morning is indelibly marked onto that community. At the same time, they have been able to lean on each other, to rely on each other, to support each other, and to lift each other up in prayer.

I want to conclude by saying to the families in Santa Fe: We are with you. We support you. We love you, and we are there for you.

To my colleagues in Congress, we need to unite together to make our schools safer, to prosecute felons and fugitives before they commit acts of murder, and to do everything to stop this horrific mass shooting epidemic. We need to do it now. End the partisan battles. Focus on the bad guys, and stop them before more lives and innocents are taken.

Mr. President, as we pause this week to remember the 10 people who lost their lives and the 13 people who were wounded 1 year ago, we should reflect on what has changed but also on what still needs to be done to stop this epidemic of mass shootings and school shootings, in particular.

Last year I was very proud that Congress authorized nearly $1 billion in school safety funding--legislation that I was a cosponsor of. That is nearly $1 billion that schools can use to improve school safety, including hardening doors so that shooters can't shoot through the school doors anymore, shrinking the number of entrances and exits, installing metal detectors, and hiring armed police officers to keep our kids safe. That was an important first step, but we need to do more.

That is why I am reintroducing this week two important bills. First, I am reintroducing legislation to authorize more funding for school safety and to enable greater targeting of the felons and fugitives who try to buy firearms illegally. If a felon or fugitive tries to purchase a firearm illegally, that felon or fugitive should be prosecuted and they should be put in Federal jail.

In 2013, my first year in the Senate, I introduced legislation with my friend Senator Grassley from Iowa to create a gun crime task force at the Federal Department of Justice to ensure that Federal convictions are in the national database and to direct the Department of Justice to prosecute the felons and fugitives who try to illegally buy guns and to put them in jail before they can take the lives of more innocents. Sadly, cynically, Senate Democrats filibustered that legislation. They prevented it from passing into law by demanding a 60-vote threshold.

In light of the tragedies of Santa Fe, Parkland, and Highlands Ranch High School, just last week, I urge my colleagues to join me in making this commonsense bill law in this Congress. Let's direct law enforcement resources to stop violent criminals before they commit more heinous murders.

I am also reintroducing the bipartisan School Security Enhancement Act with Democratic Senator Doug Jones, which would allow local communities to utilize student support and academic enrichment grants to reinforce school safety infrastructure and technology. Installing metal detectors, bulletproof doors and windows, and establishing an efficient system for communicating important information to law enforcement and to parents are all important steps in improving school safety.

I hope we can join together and pass these bills so that our students are safer, and so we can do more to prevent future mass shootings.

What happened in Santa Fe a year ago was a tragedy. On the night of the shooting, there was a candlelight prayer vigil in the community at a public park in downtown Santa Fe. Even as you saw families grieving and in unspeakable agony, and their hearts breaking, you also saw people coming together. When I was at the vigil that night, as you wept and mourned with students and parents experiencing the ultimate agony, you saw at the same time students and parents in the community leaning on each other, holding each other, holding each other up, praying alongside each other, praying with each other, and giving thanks for the heroism and strength. I think that is the only way a community makes it out of a tragedy like that.

The last year has been an extremely difficult year for the Santa Fe families and the community. That morning is indelibly marked onto that community. At the same time, they have been able to lean on each other, to rely on each other, to support each other, and to lift each other up in prayer.

I want to conclude by saying to the families in Santa Fe: We are with you. We support you. We love you, and we are there for you.

To my colleagues in Congress, we need to unite together to make our schools safer, to prosecute felons and fugitives before they commit acts of murder, and to do everything to stop this horrific mass shooting epidemic. We need to do it now. End the partisan battles. Focus on the bad guys, and stop them before more lives and innocents are taken.

Madam President, Dr. King's profoundly just and moral letter from the Birmingham jail continued:

There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and

men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of

despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and

unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety

over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a

legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to

obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing

segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may

seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One

may well ask: ``How can you advocate breaking some laws and

obeying others?'' The answer lies in the fact that there are

two types of laws: Just and unjust. I would be the first to

advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a

moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a

moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree

with St. Augustine that ``an unjust law is no law at all.''

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one

determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a

man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of

God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the

moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An

unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law

and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is

just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All

segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts

the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator

a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense

of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the

Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an ``I it''

relationship for an ``I thou'' relationship and ends up

relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation

is not only politically, economically and sociologically

unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has

said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an

existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful

estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can

urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for

it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey

segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust

laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power

majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not

make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the

same token, a just law is a [law] that a majority compels

a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow

itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another

explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a

minority that, as a result of being denied the right to

vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can

say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that

state's segregation laws was democratically elected?

Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used

to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and

there are some counties in which, even though Negroes

constitute a majority of the population, not a single

Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such

circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its

application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge

of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in

having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But

such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain

segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment

privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to

point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the

law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to

anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly,

lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I

submit that an individual who breaks the law that conscience

tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of

imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the

community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the

highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil

disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of

Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at

stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who

were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain

of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws

of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a

reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience.

In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive

act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in

Germany was ``legal'' and

everything that the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary

was ``illegal.'' It was ``illegal'' to aid and comfort a Jew

in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in

Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my

Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country

where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are

suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's

antireligious laws.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and

Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few

years I have been gravely disappointed with the white

moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion

that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward

freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux

Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to

``order'' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which

is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the

presence of justice; who constantly says: ``I agree with you

in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of

direct action''; who paternalistically believes he can set

the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a

mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro

to wait for a ``more convenient season.'' Shallow

understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating

than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.

Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright

rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that

law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice

and that when they fail in this purpose they become the

dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social

progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would

understand that the present tension in the South is a

necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative

peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust

plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men

will respect the dignity and worth of human personality.

Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not

the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the

hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the

open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that

can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be

opened with all its ugliness for the natural medicines of air

and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension

its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and

the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Virginia.