Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in support of the brave, hard- working men and women who serve as law enforcement officers in our communities across the Nation. Men and women in law enforcement risk life and limb every day to protect public safety and preserve the rule of law. They truly are American heroes.

In recognition of their remarkable service and sacrifice, I am reintroducing the Protect and Serve Act. I hope every Senator agrees we must do everything we can to support the men and women in blue. I also call on my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation. It is my hope that this legislation will unite us on a bipartisan basis to support those heroes who keep us safe.

I can think of no better example of why we need this legislation than the events of January 6, right here in this Chamber and across the Capitol. While a ruthless, anarchist mob sought to disrupt and destroy our democracy, Capitol Police officers bravely kept us safe from harm while they were being viciously attacked by the violent mob. Many of my colleagues saw this firsthand while they were getting us into a safe position as the events unfolded that day.

Because this attack occurred in DC, though, there are only limited laws in place to prosecute those who would assault a law enforcement officer. Under current law, a criminal who assaults a law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon or who inflicts bodily injury could receive anywhere from a fine to 20 years in prison. Under the Protect and Serve Act, these violent criminals will receive an additional 10 years in prison if they assault an officer, and if they murder or kidnap a law enforcement officer, they could be given life sentences.

This would apply not only to Federal law enforcement and Federal properties, but it could also be used to prosecute criminals at the State and local levels who target law enforcement officers. This Federal law would ensure

that prosecutors have every tool available to punish those who attack the men and women in blue.

Nationwide in 2020, 47 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty, and over 300 were shot. Three of those murdered officers were right in my home State of North Carolina. So far in 2021, 14 officers have been killed in the line of duty, and over 50 have been shot. Countless others have been assaulted.

The year 2020 saw the rise of radical ideas like abolishing the police, which fueled distrust and disdain for our brave men and women in blue. Even while Americans of all views are calling for transparency and accountability, the ideas of abolishing and defunding the police only serve to deepen the divide in our country and our communities.

It is sad that Congress even needs to consider a bill to protect law enforcement officers. The heated rhetoric and the violent attacks on officers are having real world impacts beyond just the safety of our law enforcement community. Across the country, recruitments are down and retirements are up. We have cities having to increase funding for recruiting and finding people that will replace those who have left the profession or retired early. This is sad, but it is not surprising. Law enforcement officers put their lives at risk every single day. They leave their spouses and families every morning, and they don't know if they are going to come back.

In 2018, before the antipolice rhetoric took hold, the House passed the legislation by an overwhelming vote of 382 to 35--the bill that I am reintroducing--including 220 Republicans and 162 Democrats. On the floor, every current Member of the House Democratic leadership voted in favor of this legislation, including Speaker Pelosi.

This has been bipartisan legislation, and it should be bipartisan legislation today, which is why I call on all of my colleagues--Members of the Republican caucus and the Democratic caucus--to join us in support of this commonsense and needed legislation.

Congress must pass the Protect and Serve Act right away and boldly say that there is no escape from justice for dangerous criminals who intentionally assault and kill our hard-working, dedicated law enforcement officers.

I urge the American people: Call your Senators. Ask them to support the measure. Tell them that you want this bill passed and our law enforcement officers protected. Don't be silent. Help me fight for the men and women in blue, because they are counting on us. And along the way, when you see a law enforcement officer, thank them for their service and let them know Members of Congress are fighting for them.

Madam President, I rise today with my colleague, the senior Senator from North Carolina, to honor the life and work of Sam Taylor, the president of North Carolina Biosciences Organization. Sam was a giant in our State and a leading voice for our vital and innovative life sciences and biopharmaceutical sector. A native North Carolinian, his love for his home State and his commitment to its future always shone through. He was a graduate of North Carolina State University, and he received his law degree with high honors from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Sam was a dedicated and energetic voice for the biosciences and a terrific partner to those in government and the private sector committed to promoting those industries. This sector has seen remarkable growth in recent years: since 2016, increasing its employment base by 10 percent to reach more than 83,000 jobs in 2018 across 4,210 business establishments. Between 2016 and 2019, the biosciences has attracted more than $1.5 billion in venture capital investment to North Carolina. These successes were in no small part due to Sam and his tireless leadership and advocacy.

Sam was one of the founders of NC BIO in 1994, long before most people grasped the industry's potential. His advocacy in the business community, in Raleigh, in Washington, and around the world made a huge difference. Whether promoting our world-class universities, our startups, or more established companies, Sam was always there with the facts, the vision, and the sheer force of will to move our State forward. He worked for the creation of the NCBioImpact training collaborative with the NC Community College System's BioNetwork program, as well as the Biomanufacturing Training and Education Center at North Carolina State University and the Biomanufacturing Research Institute and Technology Enterprise program at North Carolina Central University.

Sam's work was recognized by the North Carolina Council for Entrepreneurial Development in 2005 with the Chairman's Service Award. He received the Life Science Conference Leadership Award in 2012 and the Life Science Award from Triangle Business Journal in 2015. Just recently and most significantly, he received our State's highest honor, the Order of the Long Leaf Pine. To say Sam was a giant among men is an understatement. He was a leader and a visionary, someone who truly wanted to make our State and world a better place.

North Carolinians have lost a loyal son and a tireless advocate. We have lost a friend and colleague. Today, we ask every member of this body to join us in honoring the life and amazing legacy of Sam Taylor. Our State and the people of the United States are grateful for his life of service, and we know that North Carolina will continue to be one of our Nation's life science innovation hubs in no small part due to him.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues in the discussion over the relief package we are going to be voting on later this week.

We need to go back to last year and recognize what happened in this Chamber on five different occasions. I have been in the Senate now for 6 years, and very seldom do we see both parties come together and recognize we have a problem and we have to relieve the American people.

We had a historic pandemic, first of its kind, in 100 years. COVID hit our shores. What did we do? We spent days and weeks, but over the course of those days and weeks, we came together with five bipartisan packages that really address the root problems and the challenges created by COVID.

We passed the Paycheck Protection Program, something that I think was extraordinary. The banking community got together even before we had the rules on how the loan should be underwritten and how they would be forgiven, and they decided to mobilize and provide desperately needed capital and liquidity to businesses, and they saved many, many businesses in North Carolina.

We passed Operation Warp Speed, a program that for the first time in this Nation's history, or any nation's history, we went from a known virus to two multiple vaccines with high degrees of efficacy that are now being put into the arms of Americans at a rate of almost 2 million a day. We did that because we focused on a problem and we fixed it and we continue to evolve it--five different bipartisan bills.

Now the sixth one is before us. It is called a COVID relief package, but we all know that much of what is in this bill has nothing to do with the COVID impacts and nothing to do with the immediate spending in this coming year.

Now, I understand elections have consequences. It has been said by President Obama and others, and we have a change of leadership here in the Senate and change of leadership in the White House. But I really hate that we are going to leave a mark. Probably, and hopefully, the last COVID--the last bill that would have some COVID relief in it is going to go down as one of the most probably partisan fights that we are going to have this year on this floor later this week.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided to go it alone. That is exactly what you are going to see in full display come Thursday this week when we go into what we call vote-arama.

I feel like we have to be intellectually honest with the American people. We know that we have to provide more relief. We know that people are struggling, businesses are struggling, individuals are struggling, and I get all that, and that is why I wish so much that we were going to have another bill

laid down on the floor that was going to get strong bipartisan support. But to call this bill that is coming before us this week a COVID relief package, I think, is being dishonest with the American people.

This chart probably best illustrates what the American people need to understand. That is how much is in this bill that is legitimately focused on the crisis that we are trying to continue to manage through very targeted, focused dollars--American taxpayer dollars--that in this case, as some of my colleagues have said, they are not even dollars we have collected yet. We are going to collect them from my two granddaughters and future generations: a $1.9 trillion package with about 9 percent going to something that you could reasonably argue has a nexus with the impact of COVID, whether it is on individuals, whether it is people out of work, or whether it is businesses that are trying to make payroll. That is a fact, 9 percent.

Now, I feel like at some point we need to get back to what we did on five different occasions before. We knew businesses were failing. They needed relief. We gave them the Paycheck Protection Program. We knew that people were out of work because of business closures. Maybe you had to take off work because you didn't have daycare because your school was closed. All of those are legitimate reasons to provide additional relief. That is what we should be voting on this week, and in small part we are, but in large part we are not.

I think it was someone in the Obama administration who was famously quoted for saying: ``Never waste a crisis.'' And it looks like, to me, that this crisis is being used to advance policy discussions that we should have a debate on the floor, but we are not going to have that. We are going to have a vote with a simple majority, not rising to the gold standard in this institution for 60 votes, and we are going to pass things that have virtually nothing and, in most cases, absolutely nothing to do with COVID.

How on Earth can you provide education funding and say that you are doing it for COVID impacts, and much of that money--the majority of the money--is not even going to be spent until beginning in 2022 and then playing out in 2028? How can you say that has anything to do with the immediate crisis of getting these kids back in school, making sure that teachers are safe, and making sure that we can recover from what I think will be irreparable damage for a number of students who have never been allowed to go back into school?

When we talk about the economic stimulus payments, there are a lot of people who need help. There are a lot of people who need a check. But the proposal that I have seen, the proposal we are going to vote on this week, is giving money to people who would like it.

I can understand why it is very popular. Who wouldn't, in this Chamber, want to think that they are going to get a $3,000 or $4,000 check in the mail--whether you were out of work at all, whether your combined household income is $150,000, and you are still working. You weren't impacted by it. I understand why it is popular. But is it really fair?

You know, there is a trailer park in Antioch, TN, on Richards Road. I grew up in it, and I ride there when I go visit my family. I go back and visit with people who live in that trailer park. My guess is almost every single one of them need help, and my guess is many of them who work in the service industry have been out of work for the better part of the last year. We should tell them: You are going to get some help, but that neighborhood that is about a mile down the road from that trailer park I grew up in, where you have got combined household incomes of $150,000, both the husband and wife are working, both of the kids have daycare options, they are going to get it too. Is it really fair for the people who are struggling the most? Is it really fair to say that we are providing education relief, and it is not going to be spent until I would have to run for reelection again in 2028?

I think we need to be honest with the American people. If we want to have a debate about all of the red, all of the money that is going to be committed this week that has nothing to do with COVID relief, let's be honest with the American people. What we are doing this week, I think, is dishonest

What we are doing this week is bailing out States like my State of North Carolina, a $4 billion surplus this year; bailing out the States of North Carolina, New York, Illinois, California, instead of trying to use that money, which we don't have--but if we need to spend it, let's spend it on those folks who grew up like I did. Let's spend it on the businesses that may shutter their doors. Let's do that. Let's let that be the sixth bipartisan COVID-relief package that we put together, not what we are going to be forced to vote on this week.

I hope the American people know we recognize--we Republicans recognize people are hurting, and we want to give them help. We have proven that because we voted in five different instances, on a bipartisan basis, to do that. What the leadership of this Chamber is doing this week is taking us down a course to where we will probably never have a chance to come back together and have that kind of bipartisan result for this crisis or future ones.

So I am going to work hard on amendments to potentially tailor and remove some of the red. In the meantime, I think anybody who supports the bill that is coming over from the House should seriously consider whether they are being honest with the American people and their constituents.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Garland Shepheard, who retired as the North Carolina House sergeant-in- arms at the beginning of the year. Mr. Shepheard is a proud North Carolinian who was committed to keeping North Carolina legislators safe.

Garland Shepheard is a lifelong resident of Tarboro, NC, where he resides with his wife Betty Jo. Mr. Shepheard was successful car salesman and additionally served as Edgecombe County Republican Party chairman. He also served two terms on the Tarboro Town Council and has contributed a lifetime of service to his community.

Before representing North Carolina in the U.S. Senate, I had the pleasure of interacting with Mr. Shepheard serving as North Carolina speaker of the house. Widely known for his brightly colored jackets and distinct Eastern North Carolina accent, Garland was loved by members from both sides of the aisle.

As the U.S. Senator from North Carolina, I am grateful for Garland's service to our State and Nation. I hope he enjoys his much-deserved retirement back in Eastern North Carolina, and we will never forget his commitment to keeping North Carolinians safe.

Mr. President, the American people should have full faith in our election system, which is why I led the passage of voter ID legislation in North Carolina and why I supported President Trump's right to call for recounts and bring challenges to the courts. I share the concerns of many Americans regarding the lack of security of widespread mail-in voting and the partisan actions of activist Democratic lawyers who succeeded in making questionable changes to the voting process while Americans were already casting their ballots. Even if it wasn't enough to change the outcome of the election, irregularities and fraud are never acceptable, and they should be investigated and prosecuted when appropriate.

The Framers of our Constitution made it clear that the power to certify elections is reserved to the States, not Congress. Refusing to certify State election results has no viable path to success, and, most importantly, it lends legitimacy to the left's stated policy objective of completely federalizing elections and eliminating the electoral college. Congress should not overstep its constitutional authority by overturning the results of States and the will of American voters, especially absent legitimate requests from States for Congress to intervene.

It is a precedent we should not set, and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer should not have the power to set aside electors after the 2024 election and overrule Federal courts and the Constitution as they see fit.

I was proud to support President Trump's agenda and campaign with him, and I am deeply disappointed he was not reelected despite his success in creating jobs, cutting taxes, securing a conservative judiciary, reforming the VA, and rebuilding our military. Although I certainly wish the results were different, Congress cannot change them without inflicting irreparable damage to our constitutional Republic. I will not oppose the certification of the electoral college votes, and I will not embolden politicians in the future to appoint our Presidents instead of having the American people duly elect them.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Mr. John Falkenbury, the president and chief operating officer for the United Service Organizations, USO, of North Carolina, on his decades of service to the great State of North Carolina.

For over a decade, since his initial appointment as president and COO for the USO of North Carolina in 2009, John has been integral in coordinating, planning, and leading the operations of the USO State headquarters, five USO fixed centers, and mobile centers in locations spanning the entire State. John's leadership skills were prominently displayed in his ability to mobilize thousands of volunteers over the years to support countless Active-Duty servicemembers, veterans, and their families. John's extensive resume is a testament to his lifelong commitment to public service, which includes his past role as president and CEO of Five Oaks Nursing Center in Concord, NC, serving as the managing partner of the Falkenbury Family LLC, and as the president of the Stephen D. Falkenbury Jr. Foundation in Charlotte, NC. Prior to his work for the USO, John served in the U.S. Army for 20 years, which included numerous assignments across the United States and in Germany.

The USO centers across the State of North Carolina provide critical resources and support to our men and women in uniform and their families. These services include transition assistance, financial literacy, child educational programs, deployment, and homecoming operations, military and civilian outreach programs, Fallen and Wounded Warrior escort services, and a focus on providing the entire community with support and assistance. Through his leadership, dedication, and passion for service, John Falkenbury has been a champion in ensuring these programs are readily available for anyone who needs them.

The North Carolina USO has a strong track record of dedicated support of servicemembers at military installations, including Fort Bragg, Camp Lejeune, and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. In 2016, when the devastating Hurricane Matthew flooded large portions of Eastern North Carolina, John assisted in the delivery of 1,000 care packages via Blackhawk helicopter to soldiers and civilians in afflicted areas. A USO mobile center deployed near Lumberton, NC, for 5 days to provide basic necessity items, a BBQ dinner, satellite access, and internet service to over 400 servicemembers.

As a Senator, a member of the USO Congressional Caucus, and a North Carolinian, I am pleased to congratulate John Falkenbury on his retirement and for his impressive career of public service and steadfast commitment to our country.

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

Madam President, I come before you, first and foremost, to thank Senator Inhofe for his great leadership as the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a special thanks to the staff who are working very, very hard to process the hundreds of amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act that came out of the committee with broad bipartisan support.

I am here to talk specifically about some provisions that I think are pretty important that actually started in the Personnel Subcommittee. I chair the Personnel Subcommittee for Senate Armed Services. Early this year, we heard of what I consider to be absolutely unacceptable conditions in military housing across the country. In North Carolina-- and, Madam President, in your great State of Tennessee--we have bases, and we have military housing. We have men and women, many of them very young. Oftentimes the spouses are deployed, so the family is back home taking care of their children, taking care of their own jobs, and living on the base.

About February, we got reports--and these are not just one-off reports; these are reports across the country of mold, mildew, damage from storms, and all kinds of conditions that I think in the private sector you would find objectionable. I think it is particularly objectionable when you are talking about people whose families are with that husband or wife who serve in the military or serve in this country.

We decided to have a number of hearings where we brought the private housing providers into the Senate and my Personnel Subcommittee and the full committee to get an explanation. Quite honestly, there wasn't a good explanation.

Back in 1996, the Federal Government decided to get out of the housing business. I am glad they did because they were doing a really bad job. For about 10 years, we had a great story to tell in terms of the quality of housing, the service to the tenants, and the satisfaction of the military families. But then something got sideways in a very, very bad way.

This is a shower. If you see this kind of mold and mildew in your shower,

would you think it is acceptable? If you go in and see children's toys--and this is actually the bottom side of a crib--mold and mildew in these folks' housing with small children in them, people with respiratory conditions living in these kinds of conditions, I expect the garrison down at the bases and I expect the private housing providers to move Heaven and Earth to eliminate these sorts of problems. We are making progress, but I feel, in order to make sure it is not progress that is being made just when they all of a sudden get the attention of this Senator and other Members of the U.S. Senate, we have to change the rules in terms of the authorities that the Department of Defense has and the expectations that we have for the private housing providers.

I have to give thanks to the Acting Secretary of Defense, formerly the Secretary of the Army, and all of the service Secretaries for stepping up. They have recreated a tenant of bill of rights. They have created a dispute process. They have demanded a more timely and more transparent method for actually solving service requests. All of those now have language in this National Defense Authorization Act that Congress needs to act quickly on so that we can make sure we put into place the right expectations in the statute, to make sure that the problems that exist today are fixed and that they don't happen again.

I will tell you that while we are making progress, when I go to Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune, I hold what are called sensing sessions, which are basically getting a few dozen people together to hear their complaints. There is an amazing thing that happens when I go to North Carolina.

I don't know, Madam President, if you have done one of these in Tennessee yet, but if you announce that you are going to go down and hear from the tenants, there is an amazing thing that happens. You have all of these service requests that are about to here when they announce that I am coming to Jacksonville or I am coming to Fayetteville. About a day or two before I get there, magically, they have been able to solve almost all of those service requests. Then I go away for a couple of months, and I see them coming back up again.

One thing that everybody who is listening--and these are not just the private housing providers. It is the Department of Defense and Congress that I think have shifted their focus away from this problem, and we have to maintain a focus on it.

So for my part, I just spoke with my scheduling director and my State staff. I told them that I want to take the next sensing session up a level. I want a townhall. I want to be able to put 200 or 300 families with housing down in Jacksonville at Camp Lejeune and down at Ft. Bragg in Fayetteville--I want to put them in a room, and I want to make it very clear to everybody involved, whether it is the private housing provider, the garrison commanders, the Department of Defense, and put a light on us in Congress because it is our inaction that has caused the problem.

We want to know what their problems are. We are going to hear from hundreds of people. We are going to make progress on these kinds of things through the provisions in the NDAA, but we still have to continue to focus on this problem.

First, I want to thank Senator Inhofe. He did a great job in terms of casting light on this, and I know I have the commitment of the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, but I don't want these just to be words on the floor. I want them to be words that are put into action in terms of how we can help these military families today.

If you have a service request outstanding with any vendor and you do not feel like you are getting a proper response, I want you to write down ``Tillis.senate.gov.'' In my office, we will treat every single housing request you have as a request for casework, and I will have one of several dozen staff members in my office open up a case and track it until it is completed.

As for anybody else who knows a servicemember who has this problem and thinks he will not have somebody who will follow up on it, give me a chance. We have already solved a lot of them, and we are going to solve a lot more. We are not going to finish until I believe the men and women and the families at Fort Bragg, at Camp Lejeune, and at bases across this country have the safe and comfortable housing they deserve.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Mr. Kenneth D. Bell on his confirmation to serve as the United States District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina. Mr. Bell has a distinguished record of serving North Carolina, and he is an excellent choice for this position. I look forward to his continued service to the people of western North Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Bell, for your commitment to serve in this position, and I wish you the best of luck.

Mr. President, I want to congratulate Michael B. East on his confirmation to the position of United States Marshal for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Mr. East has served as a dedicated law enforcement officer for over 28 years in North Carolina. Mr. East is highly regarded and respected throughout North Carolina. I am grateful for Mr. East's service and continued service to our State and country. I know he will make an excellent addition to the United States Marshal Service, and I wish him the best of luck.

Mr. President, while my friend and colleague from Alaska is still on the floor, I want to thank him for his many years of service as a marine.

I am here to talk about North Carolina and Military Appreciation Month. We have a special relationship with members of the military and their families in North Carolina. We have a million veterans in the State. Literally hundreds of thousands of people serve in the military.

You may have heard of the Global Response Force. The Global Response Force is out of Fort Bragg. When there is a crisis anywhere in the world, whether it is a military conflict or a relief effort, it is the 82nd Airborne that goes out to the green ramp down in Fort Bragg, NC, and goes wherever they need to go, sometimes with 48 hours' notice.

Just down the street from there, we have the marines at Camp Lejeune. The marines who are based in Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point and New River constitute about 45 percent of all the marines serving in the Marine Corps.

We can go up to Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, and we have a proud number of men and women in the Air Force who are part of a base that will be the home to the new KC-46, a next-generation tanker.

To say we have a close bond with the military is an understatement. We love them, and we love their families.

I chair the Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, so I have an opportunity to have a direct role in showing appreciation to not only the men and women who are serving in the military but also their spouses. It is a tough job. They are serving too.

As we think about Military Appreciation Month, let's make sure we are, first and foremost, thinking about not only those brave men and women who have sworn the oath to defend and protect our Nation but also their families, who are an integral part of their being capable and ready to do the job.

I also want to make sure we don't lose sight of the veteran population--a

million of them in my State alone. One-tenth of our population are veterans.

We should also talk about the National Guard and the reservists. If you take a look at a State like North Carolina, we have had a number of people in the National Guard who have been deployed multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan--some of the most dangerous places you could be. They do it with courage, and they do it with honor. During Military Appreciation Month, I think we should pay special attention to this special group of people. I hope that every day of the year, each and every one of you shows them the appreciation and the respect they deserve.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come here with a heavy heart.

On April 30, at 4:40 p.m., a shooting occurred in the Kennedy Building on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. It is a college campus. It is only about 15 minutes from my house. The shooting occurred on the last day of classes. When a lot of family members and friends were thinking about graduation and thinking about what they were going to do over the summer, their lives were shattered. I am here to celebrate the lives of two of the victims.

Before I do that, I thank all of the first responders and the people on campus who did an extraordinary job. The first among them would be Chancellor Dubois, and there are so many more first responders.

What makes this particularly difficult for me is the loss of life of two young men--one who was 19, Ellis ``Reed'' Parlier, and Riley Howell, who was 21 years old. These kids were in school.

One, Ellis, enrolled in 2017. He loved video games. He wanted to be a video game developer. He was a volunteer. He actually tutored middle schoolers on computer programming. His professor described him as independent and motivated.

Another young man, Riley, who has an extraordinary story within this horrible act, enrolled in UNC Charlotte in 2018. He had gone to A-B Tech before that. He was in environmental studies. He loved the outdoors. He loved Star Wars. He loved pizza and playing soccer. He was just a normal kid who was going to college. He was also enrolled in the ROTC at UNC Charlotte. What makes his story extraordinary are the accounts from police officers. If you understand the Kennedy Building, there are a lot of people around and a lot of classrooms. There are a lot of potential victims. This young man actually charged the gunman. Although he lost his own life, most police credit him with saving the lives of so many more.

So, on this sad day that we will never forget--the day of April 30--I come before this body to let them know and their families know that we are praying for them.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sydney Fincher, a member of my staff, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 116th Congress.

Mr. President, yesterday, we had what I believe will be viewed as a historic hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is a committee I have been on for now about 4\1/2\ years.

The Attorney General, Mr. Barr, came before the committee to answer questions about the special counsel investigation--an investigation that took 675 days, cost more than $25 million, had 34 people indicted, including Russian nationals, more than 2,800 subpoenas, 500 witnesses, 500 search warrants, more than 230 orders for communication records, and 13 evidence requests to foreign countries. I think by those measures, that is considered a pretty extensive investigation.

Back about 2 years ago, in August of 2017, Senator Graham and I and a couple of other Members actually filed a bill to make it difficult to have a special counsel removed before an investigation had been completed. I actually took a fair amount of heat from people on my side of the aisle for doing that, but I believed we needed to have this investigation run its course, and it did. It culminated in a more than 400-page report that now is largely available to the public. In fact, of the 400--I think it is almost 440 pages--90 percent of volume I, which is the volume that talks about Russia tampering with U.S. elections, 90 percent of that is available to the American public. Volume II--the volume focused on whether there was obstruction of justice--98 percent of that was made available to the American people 3 weeks after the Department of Justice received the unredacted report.

Now, for the leaders of the Senate, 99.9 percent of the special counsel's report is available. You could say: Why not 100 percent? Because we have rules here--and I think it is also important to point out that the Attorney General

had no legal obligation to release any of this. This could have been deemed a confidential matter, and it could never have been available to the general public. The Attorney General took the extraordinary step of making sure that as much as possible could be made available, and he did a great job.

I might add that throughout the entire process, the White House had the opportunity to assert Executive privilege. They could actually have portions of the report blocked out or have it redacted, which falls short of that. The White House never reached out and requested any omissions or, actually, redactions of the report, which means you can't read it publicly--not one in the nearly 3\1/2\ weeks it took for the Attorney General to get the report ready for public consumption.

Some people are wondering, why did it take so long? Because the process of redaction has to take into account basically three different considerations. You have to determine whether there is a matter there that could be embarrassing to a party who had no involvement; they were just a witness in the investigation. It could be because there are ongoing investigations, or it could be because it is a threat to homeland security. But even with that, 90 percent of it is available to the general public, on Russian tampering--98 percent.

The reason I tell you that is at the hearing yesterday, if you sit on the Judiciary Committee--I am not a lawyer. I am a businessperson who has been on the Judiciary Committee for 4\1/2\ years. So I don't necessarily go at this debate the same way that maybe an attorney would. We had a lot of the people in the committee really trying to mislead the American people. They were saying that there was wrongdoing because the Department of Justice had to take about 3\1/2\ weeks to get the report ready for prime time. We are saying that the report is available. It took about 3 or 4 weeks to actually make it available. But they are almost suggesting that was a criminal or obstructionist act.

Some, instead of going down that tack, said that a letter--I have to explain the timeline.

On March 24, the Attorney General issued a letter saying that the bottom line of the report they were reviewing was that there was no crime committed by the President and that there was insufficient evidence to even suggest there was obstruction.

Now, you have to understand these two working in play. The crime that many of my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle said the President committed never happened. After 675 days and all the interviews and all the warrants and everything that I have said, there was no underlying crime.

The second half of the report is about obstruction. This would be obstruction in an investigation that concluded there was no underlying crime. The President was deemed not to have committed a crime. The President was deemed not to have committed obstruction of justice.

So now we turn to a request to have Robert Mueller come before the Judiciary Committee so they can ask him questions. What questions could he possibly answer that are not embodied in a report that took 675 days, $25 million, hundreds of witnesses, and dozens of full-time professionals? What more could Robert Mueller possibly say in a 3- or 4-hour hearing that is not embodied in this report and within the full view of the American public? I don't think it is about that.

Actually, one of the arguments that were used in the committee was, we need his advice on how to prevent Russia from tampering in our elections. Really? I don't need an attorney's advice on how to prevent Russia from tampering in our elections. Prosecutors determine whether laws are broken. Robert Mueller is not a professional in cyber security and elections safety; he is actually a prosecutor who finished his job.

Some of the other ones said: Well, the reason we want to get his input is because the President is not interested in securing elections. Well, I would ask them to go back to the classified briefings that I have sat in and they have sat in where the administration is clearly taking aggressive actions to make sure that Russia can't penetrate our State election systems and that they can't meddle in the way they attempted to in 2016.

So what this really boils down to is theater--some of it almost to the level of comedy. Let me give an example.

There was a House hearing today, and I am about to put up a picture that actually was on C-SPAN that actually occurred in a House hearing. You tell me whether the chair of that committee is actually serious about this subject when you have a guy eating fried chicken in place of where they wanted Attorney General Barr to be. This guy didn't even have good enough sense to have Bojangles' chicken. And they have the chair and others letting him have that kind of theater in a House committee room.

Really? I mean, can you honestly say you are serious about this, or is this like a circus and a political tool because you lost? You wanted the President to be guilty. You wanted to prove he obstructed. I get that. A lot of it was a political exercise. But the bottom line is, after 675 days, almost $30 million when it is all totaled up, 34 people indicted, including Russians, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 witnesses interviewed, 500 search warrants executed, 230 orders for communication records, and 13 requests to foreign countries to provide information-- really? These folks--some of them are prosecutors--know better.

I will tell you that I think the American people want my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to focus on what Americans are really worried about. They are worried about their economic security. They are worried about their healthcare security. They are worried about keeping a job. They are worried about sending their kids to college and putting them through school. If you want to win an election next year, stop playing games and stop the theater.

The President is not guilty of a crime. The President is not guilty of obstruction of justice. It went through one of the most rigorous investigations in modern history.

To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, prove what policies and priorities you have for the American people, and win on the basis of your ideas on your commitments. Stop the theater, and get back to work.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Judge James C. Fox, who served as a Federal District Court Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina for more than 35 years, passed away Saturday, March 23, 2019, at the age of 90.

Judge Fox was born on November 6, 1928, in Atchison, KS. As a young boy, his family moved to Greensboro, NC, where he grew up. Judge Fox graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1950 and married Katharine deRosset Rhett on December 30, 1950. Judge Fox served as a corporal in the United States Army Reserve from 1951-1959.

Judge Fox attended law school at the University of North Carolina School of Law, where he graduated in 1957 with highest honors. Subsequently, he took a clerkship with Judge Donnell Gilliam who predated Judge Fox as a U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Judge Fox entered private practice in 1959 with the firm Carter & Murchison in New Hanover County, NC, where he practiced for 20 years. While in private practice, Judge Fox served as the county attorney for New Hanover County for 13 years.

President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Fox to serve as a U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina on September 13, 1982. Judge Fox served the residents of North Carolina for more than 35 years. He served as chief judge from 1990 to 1997 and assumed senior status on January 31, 2001. Even after assuming senior status, Judge Fox maintained a full caseload until he retired in 2017. Judge Fox was known as courteous but firm and was widely respected by everyone who came into his courtroom.

In addition to his decades of public service, Judge Fox served as director of the law alumni association for the University of North Carolina in 1964 and president of the law foundation at the University of North Carolina from 1977 to 1979. Judge Fox served on numerous civic boards, including the University of North Carolina Board of Visitors, the Boy Scouts, the United Way, the Family Service Society, Opportunities, Inc., Davis Healthcare, and the Children's Home Society. Judge Fox was also an active member of Ducks Unlimited. He loved the outdoors and spent significant time and resources on conservation management efforts.

Most importantly, Judge Fox was a devoted husband, father, and grandfather. I am grateful to Judge Fox for his service and to his family for sharing his time with the residents of North Carolina. He will be greatly missed.