Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly conference meetings and the time during the recess count postcloture.

Mr. President, last year, a woman named Carol Denise Richardson was released from Federal prison after President Obama granted her clemency. She had been serving a life sentence for possessing and intending to distribute 50 or more grams of cocaine, on top of having an already lengthy criminal record. She had not done anything specifically violent, so, theoretically, we should have been able to release her early and see good results, at least according to the advocates of criminal leniency.

Unfortunately, nothing good has come from this decision. Now, less than a year later, Carol Richardson is going back to prison. As part of her release, she was put on a 10-year probation, which meant she had to check in regularly with her probation officers, but she did not. She did not tell them she had left her job. She did not tell them she had moved. She did not even tell them she had been arrested.

Her latest offense, I should say, falls somewhere short of heinous. She was arrested in Pasadena, TX, for stealing $60 worth of laundry detergent so she could buy drugs.

From everything I have read in the news, it seems clear that Carol Richardson is not a serious, violent menace to society, but it is also clear she was not prepared to reenter society. She still had not kicked her drug habit. She still could not keep and hold a steady job. She still could not meet the most basic requirements of citizenship and basic adulthood.

But the real question is, Why would she be ready? Why would we expect that of her? She never went through the rehab that could have given her a second chance at life. Instead we just threw her in the deep end and watched her sink. That is why I think this story is worth mentioning, because I believe we should give pause to every advocate of criminal leniency.

They like to argue that taking people out of prison both heals communities and saves money. But who was better off once Carol Richardson was released? Not her community; she committed a crime within months. Not the taxpayers; they are still paying for prison costs. And here is the thing: Neither was she. She is back in prison yet again.

But, sometimes, the consequences are worse than this sad story. They are horrifying. Last year, a man named Wendell Callahan brutally killed his ex-girlfriend and her two young daughters. A frantic 911 call from the scene said that the two girls' throats had been slit.

These murders were an atrocity, and they were completely avoidable. Wendell Callahan walked out of Federal prison in August of 2014 after his sentence had been reduced in accordance with the provisions of sentencing guidelines made by the Sentencing Commission. Callahan's original sentence should have kept him in jail until 2018. If he had been in jail instead of on the streets, a young family would be alive today.

What the Richardson case, on one hand, and the Callahan case, on the other hand, show us are two things: First, if we are going to reform the criminal justice system, we shouldn't focus on merely reducing sentences. That doesn't do all that much to help our society. Instead, we should focus on rehabilitating people while they are in prison, whatever the length of their sentence. They need serious help if they can ever hope to redeem themselves and, once they are out of jail, stay out for good. And we should give them that help, not only because it is

good for them--though it is--but because it is good for us as a society. This is why I support real reform that will make our prisons safer for inmates and correction officers alike and take real steps to help inmates leave their lives of crime behind once and for all.

The second lesson is this: We need to know far more than we do now about how many people we release early from prison go back to a life of crime. What types of crimes do they commit? How many murders? How many robberies? How many drug arrests? Those numbers can be small or they can be large, but we need to know them to understand the full scope of our problem. And having that information will help the President decide each case as he considers when and how to use his pardon power.

But, today, the Federal Government doesn't even compile these data.

That is why I, along with Senators Hatch, Sessions, and Perdue, introduced a bill last year to require that the government collect and report on these numbers. Unfortunately, the bill did not pass into law. So I want to announce today that I intend to reintroduce the bill with a renewed sense of urgency. This is just one story, after all. We don't know how many people granted clemency are returning to crime. But that is all the more reason to start collecting more data. We need to thoroughly evaluate cold, hard evidence before we make any sweeping changes to our criminal laws.

Carol Richardson's story should warn us of the perils of letting ideology get the better of common sense. We owe it to our neighbors to keep their families safe, and we owe it to the Carol Richardsons of the world to give them a real and honest chance at life once they complete their sentence.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I want to add to the voice of so many Senators today who expressed their prayers and concerns for the five Americans who were wounded today in a terrible shooting in Alexandria, VA: Steve Scalise, a friend of mine from the House of Representatives, someone who took a bet on me early in my first campaign, as a neighboring State, aspiring young candidate, and with whom I served for 2 years; Matt Mika, who represents the Tyson Foods, a great Arkansas institution, and whom I have known since the beginning of my days of politics; Zack Barth, a young House staffer; and Crystal Griner and David Bailey, two brave Capitol police officers who were on the scene.

We don't yet know all of the details of what happened this morning. Here is what we do know: If it weren't for the bravery of those Capitol police officers--not just Crystal and David but the others present-- there might have been many more killed.

We all sit here safely engaged in the great debates of American democracy--whether we are a Senator or whether we are Americans watching it--because there are brave men and women literally standing guard at our doors with guns, willing to put their lives on the line to defend all of us.

I want to join so many other Senators today to express my gratitude to the Capitol Police, not just for protecting us--535 elected Members of Congress--but also for protecting all of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who come here every single day of the year to see their Congress and their Representatives doing the people's business.

Honoring Private First Class Larry Roberts

Mr. President, speaking of men who guard us with guns, I want to turn our attention to Arlington National Cemetery. After 74 years, an American patriot has finally come home.

PFC Larry Roberts, of Damascus, AK, was only 18 years old at the time of his final mission. It was November 1943--the height of World War II. Private Roberts had been assigned to the Special Weapons Group, 2nd Defense Battalion, Fleet Marine Force. U.S. forces were making their way across the Pacific, island by island. That month, those marines landed on tiny Betio in the Tarawa Atoll of the Gilbert Islands. The mission? Take the island and advance on to Tokyo and victory. Private Roberts and his battle buddies performed brilliantly, but the fighting was fierce. One thousand marines and sailors were killed and 2,000 were wounded. The Japanese fought to the last man standing. In the end we won but at steep cost.

Private Roberts, like so many others, was killed on November 25, 1943. In the 2 years after the war, the 604th Quartermaster Graves Registration Company tried to recover all of the remains on the battlefield, but they never found any sign of Private Roberts. In 1949, a military review board declared his remains nonrecoverable.

Just 2 years ago, the nonprofit History Flight discovered an until- then unknown burial site on the island and recovered remains of 35 marines who had died there. It took 2 years, but thanks to the amazing work of the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, we were able to identify the remains of Private First Class Roberts. It was heartening news, especially to the Roberts family.

I am happy to say he has been laid to rest on American soil on our most hallowed ground--Arlington National Cemetery. I had the honor of attending his funeral earlier today. Now he rests amid the rolling green hills and the ghostly white crosses of that cemetery. I think it is more than fitting because his burial there is a symbol of what this one person, this young man so far away from home, did for our country. He gave his all-too-brief life in service to something greater than himself. He gave his life and service to his country. He gave all his tomorrows so you could have today and tomorrow.

I wanted to recognize him and his service on the Senate floor tonight. Standing here, I think of the words of the great British Parliamentarian William Gladstone: ``Show me the manner in which a nation cares for its dead and I will measure with mathematical exactness the tender mercies of its people, their respect for the laws of the land, and their loyalty to high ideals.''

To the men and women of our Armed Forces, I want you to know that if you are ever separated, captured, missing, or killed in action, our country will spare no expense and will suffer any burden to bring you back too.

PFC Larry Roberts died fighting for that highest ideal, that of freedom. He would have been 92 years old this year. It is because of him and his bravery and millions of Americans like him that our country is still here, still standing, still free, as it has been for 241 years.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, today, I speak in favor of the Iran sanctions bill. I am an original cosponsor of the bill, so it should come as no surprise that I support it. My only concern is that we did not pass it sooner.

As I stand here today, I cannot help but feel that this moment highlights the folly of the last 8 years of President Obama's foreign policy. For 8 years, President Obama did everything he could to curry favor with the Ayatollahs in Tehran. He ignored popular protests, known as the Green Movement, and the thousands of Iranians who cried out for something more than sham elections. He lectured our Gulf Arab allies on the need to ``share'' the Middle East with their sworn enemy in some kind of cold peace. He insisted on putting daylight between us and our friend Israel. He dallied and dithered as the regime helped its client Bashar al-Assad help tear apart his own country in a brutal civil war. Most infamously, he traded away billions of dollars in sanctions relief for a flimsy, one-sided nuclear deal--a deal that did not prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon so much as ultimately guarantee it in just a few years.

What do we have to show for all of this? What did we get for looking the other way for 8 years? Not a more reasonable Iran, not a more open, tolerant, democratic Iran, not a friendlier Iran, but an emboldened Iran--one that continues to launch ballistic missiles in willful defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions. For everything we have done to mollify the ayatollahs and their sensitivities, they have gone out of their way to inflame ours. What did President Obama do? Nothing but appease them.

But we should not lay these failures solely on the last President's doorstep, because he represents a mindset that is too widely shared. It is one that sees Iran's obvious imperial aggression in the Middle East and yet still considers America the aggressor. It is one that tries to compartmentalize and haggle with a regime whose leaders shout ``death to Israel'' and ``death to America'' virtually every Friday. It is one that refuses to call a spade a spade and say to the Ayatollahs that enough is enough.

But today we are changing course--and not a moment too soon. This legislation will finally hold the regime and Tehran accountable for their brazen attempts to bully their neighbors and assert supremacy throughout the Middle East. It will put heavy sanctions on anyone who is involved in helping Iran develop ballistic missiles, circumvent our arms embargo, or spread terrorism throughout the world.

I know there are those who consider this kind of a move to be provocative, but I would say that it is the Iranian regime's aggression that has been provocative. All of these sanctioned activities are things that the regime and Tehran should not be doing in the first place. I do not think it is provocative to hold our enemies to the same standards as our friends. I do not think it is unreasonable to do what we can to protect our friends and ourselves from Iranian-supported terrorism and from a regime that is responsible for killing hundreds of American troops in the Middle East. Instead, I think it is long overdue.

Today, I am glad to see the Senate finally prepared to rectify these grave mistakes.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to add my support this morning for Courtney Elwood as the next general counsel of the CIA--not that she really needs it. In her many years of public service and private practice, Courtney has earned the esteem of her colleagues across both parties and two administrations. David Kris, an Obama appointee, calls her ``a first-class lawyer.'' Ben Powell, a Bush appointee, calls her ``one of the finest lawyers of her generation.'' Caroline Krass, another Obama appointee, calls her ``an excellent choice.'' And Wan Kim, another Bush appointee, says she is ``careful, brilliant, and highly accomplished.''

In other words, you don't need me to tell you Courtney Elwood is a first-rate attorney. In fact, you don't need anyone to tell you that because her accomplishments speak for themselves.

She graduated from Yale Law School in 1994 and went on to clerk for both Judge Mike Luttig on the Fourth Circuit and then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist at the Supreme Court. After spending some time in private practice, she worked for 6 years in the George W. Bush administration, rising from associate counsel to the President, to deputy counsel to the Vice President, to Deputy Chief of Staff and Counselor to the Attorney General.

We are not talking about a rookie lawyer who is inexperienced in the ways of Washington or in the corridors of power. Her commitment to the law is unquestioned and unquestionable. She is just the person we need for this position.

The general counsel of the CIA will help Director Pompeo navigate the many twists and turns of the thorny legal terrain as our intelligence community defends our country against a wide range of threats: terrorism, cyber warfare, and good, old-fashioned espionage. We need people of the highest caliber serving at our national security agencies, and there is broad agreement that Courtney Elwood fits the bill.

I am happy to support her nomination, and I thank her and her family for answering the call to serve once again.

(The remarks of Mr. Cotton pertaining to the introduction of S. 1297 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the attacks in London last weekend exposed in a matter of minutes just how vulnerable free societies truly are. All it takes is a van or a knife and an unsuspecting bystander to turn a fun night out on the town into a horrific nightmare.

Of course, we shouldn't need any reminders, but let me give one yet again: We are at war with Islamic extremists. We have been for years, and I am sorry to say that there is no end in sight. It is easy to forget this as we go about our daily lives, but our enemies have not, and they will not. They have never taken their eyes off the ultimate target, either--the United States.

Yes, we are at war with a vicious and unyielding foe, and just as our enemy can attack us with the simplest of everyday tools, the strongest shield we have in our defense is just as basic: It is the intelligence--information--of knowing who is talking to whom about what, where, when, and why.

After the 9/11 attacks, our national security agencies developed cutting-edge programs that allow us to figure out what the bad guys are up to and stop them before they can perpetrate such heinous attacks. Very often, the intelligence they have collected has made the difference between life and death for American citizens. But one of those programs is going to sunset later this year. I am talking about section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This is a program that collects information about foreign persons on foreign soil and, as a result, saves American lives.

Unfortunately, this and other programs were distorted in the public debate by a traitor, a disgruntled ex-NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, who now sits in the warm embrace of Russian intelligence services. Ever since his very damaging leak of classified material many years back, many Americans have grown doubtful about these programs and about section 702 in particular, which is why it bears repeating just what section 702 does. It allows our national security agencies to collect internet or phone communications from a source within the United States, like an internet service provider, but only under a very specific set of conditions. It cannot target American citizens--not even lawful permanent residents. It can't even target foreigners communicating on U.S. soil. It can target only people discussing a specific list of topics preapproved by the FISA court, which is made up of Federal judges with life tenure. We are not talking about what they are picking up at the grocery store or when they are checking in on the kids. We are talking about things like weapons of mass destruction.

It is true that this program occasionally does collect information about American citizens. That will be true of any attempt to stop any kind of homegrown terrorism. But if you are concerned about protecting Americans' privacy rights, then you should support extending 702. It puts in place a host of privacy protections to scrub raw intelligence of any unnecessary identifying information. To allow this program to expire on December 31 would hurt both our national security and our privacy rights.

That is why today I am introducing a bill that would reauthorize section 702 permanently, as is, with no changes. We can't tie the hands of our national security officials at the precise moment that our enemies are taking the gloves off around the world. Terrorists don't plan to sunset their threats to our way of life, so why should our important counterterrorism tools sunset?

I am glad to say that my legislation has the support of every Republican Senator on the Intelligence Committee, and I look forward to earning the support of my colleagues in the weeks ahead because we can't afford to let this program expire. It is not too much and it is not an exaggeration to say that American lives depend on section 702.

Mr. President, the attacks in London last weekend exposed in a matter of minutes just how vulnerable free societies truly are. All it takes is a van or a knife and an unsuspecting bystander to turn a fun night out on the town into a horrific nightmare.

Of course, we shouldn't need any reminders, but let me give one yet again: We are at war with Islamic extremists. We have been for years, and I am sorry to say that there is no end in sight. It is easy to forget this as we go about our daily lives, but our enemies have not, and they will not. They have never taken their eyes off the ultimate target, either--the United States.

Yes, we are at war with a vicious and unyielding foe, and just as our enemy can attack us with the simplest of everyday tools, the strongest shield we have in our defense is just as basic: It is the intelligence--information--of knowing who is talking to whom about what, where, when, and why.

After the 9/11 attacks, our national security agencies developed cutting-edge programs that allow us to figure out what the bad guys are up to and stop them before they can perpetrate such heinous attacks. Very often, the intelligence they have collected has made the difference between life and death for American citizens. But one of those programs is going to sunset later this year. I am talking about section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This is a program that collects information about foreign persons on foreign soil and, as a result, saves American lives.

Unfortunately, this and other programs were distorted in the public debate by a traitor, a disgruntled ex-NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, who now sits in the warm embrace of Russian intelligence services. Ever since his very damaging leak of classified material many years back, many Americans have grown doubtful about these programs and about section 702 in particular, which is why it bears repeating just what section 702 does. It allows our national security agencies to collect internet or phone communications from a source within the United States, like an internet service provider, but only under a very specific set of conditions. It cannot target American citizens--not even lawful permanent residents. It can't even target foreigners communicating on U.S. soil. It can target only people discussing a specific list of topics preapproved by the FISA court, which is made up of Federal judges with life tenure. We are not talking about what they are picking up at the grocery store or when they are checking in on the kids. We are talking about things like weapons of mass destruction.

It is true that this program occasionally does collect information about American citizens. That will be true of any attempt to stop any kind of homegrown terrorism. But if you are concerned about protecting Americans' privacy rights, then you should support extending 702. It puts in place a host of privacy protections to scrub raw intelligence of any unnecessary identifying information. To allow this program to expire on December 31 would hurt both our national security and our privacy rights.

That is why today I am introducing a bill that would reauthorize section 702 permanently, as is, with no changes. We can't tie the hands of our national security officials at the precise moment that our enemies are taking the gloves off around the world. Terrorists don't plan to sunset their threats to our way of life, so why should our important counterterrorism tools sunset?

I am glad to say that my legislation has the support of every Republican Senator on the Intelligence Committee, and I look forward to earning the support of my colleagues in the weeks ahead because we can't afford to let this program expire. It is not too much and it is not an exaggeration to say that American lives depend on section 702.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, September will mark the 60th anniversary of the Little Rock Nine, the nine African-American students who enrolled in the then-all-white Little Rock Central High School in 1957. Ask anyone who lived through the crisis, and they will tell you they remember it vividly. They may not have been there in person, but they remember the photos, those searing images of an angry mob, the stoic students, the bayoneted troops, all gathering in a high school, of all places.

Perhaps the most searing image is of Elizabeth Eckford, one of the nine who was then only 15 years old. She didn't get word that the other students were going as a group. She went alone in a simple black-and- white dress she had made just for the occasion. The mob baited her, menaced her, cursed her, some threatened to lynch her. She later said of her walk to the school's entrance: ``It was the longest block I've ever walked in my whole life.''

I think it is of the highest importance that we preserve their story and share it with our kids. It is a reminder of pretty sad times in our history and, more important, of the courage shown by nine young Arkansans, who helped our State and our Nation overcome deep-seated prejudices by appealing to the better angels of our nature.

We preserve historic battlefields like Yorktown and Gettysburg because we want our children to know what it took to gain and keep our freedom--the sacrifices made, the hardships endured. Equally important is preserving historic sites like Central High, where our citizens began the long road to freedom from oppression and intolerance.

That is why we made Central High School a historic site years ago, though with one oversight. There are seven homes across the street from the school. Their exteriors were in many of the pictures that are now so famous. There has long been a movement to preserve those exteriors so future generations will be able to see Central High exactly as it looked when the Little Rock Nine arrived to school.

I am proud to say that today I am introducing a bill with three of my colleagues--the senior Senator of Vermont Pat Leahy, Congressman French Hill of Little Rock, and civil rights legend Congressman John Lewis-- that would do just that. It would extend the boundary of the Central High historical site to include these seven homes.

It would add about an acre and a half to the park, although I should say this bill would not authorize the Federal Government to take ownership of the homes and wouldn't allow the National Park Service to buy them in the future. Instead, it would simply encourage the homeowners and National Park Service to work together to preserve these homes so future generations could see them and learn from them. That is one reason our bill has the support of the homeowners, the Central High Neighborhood Association, and my State's historic preservation advocacy group, Preserve Arkansas. All three have written to me to express support for the bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have their letters printed in the Record.

There is widespread agreement in the community and in our State that this site is not just a part of Arkansas' history, it is a part of our national heritage.

Central High stands as a reminder of an article Billy Graham published during the crisis, ``No Color Line in Heaven.'' It was a hard-won lesson and one I think we should do everything we can to pass on to the next generation.

Mr. President, September will mark the 60th anniversary of the Little Rock Nine, the nine African-American students who enrolled in the then-all-white Little Rock Central High School in 1957. Ask anyone who lived through the crisis, and they will tell you they remember it vividly. They may not have been there in person, but they remember the photos, those searing images of an angry mob, the stoic students, the bayoneted troops, all gathering in a high school, of all places.

Perhaps the most searing image is of Elizabeth Eckford, one of the nine who was then only 15 years old. She didn't get word that the other students were going as a group. She went alone in a simple black-and- white dress she had made just for the occasion. The mob baited her, menaced her, cursed her, some threatened to lynch her. She later said of her walk to the school's entrance: ``It was the longest block I've ever walked in my whole life.''

I think it is of the highest importance that we preserve their story and share it with our kids. It is a reminder of pretty sad times in our history and, more important, of the courage shown by nine young Arkansans, who helped our State and our Nation overcome deep-seated prejudices by appealing to the better angels of our nature.

We preserve historic battlefields like Yorktown and Gettysburg because we want our children to know what it took to gain and keep our freedom--the sacrifices made, the hardships endured. Equally important is preserving historic sites like Central High, where our citizens began the long road to freedom from oppression and intolerance.

That is why we made Central High School a historic site years ago, though with one oversight. There are seven homes across the street from the school. Their exteriors were in many of the pictures that are now so famous. There has long been a movement to preserve those exteriors so future generations will be able to see Central High exactly as it looked when the Little Rock Nine arrived to school.

I am proud to say that today I am introducing a bill with three of my colleagues--the senior Senator of Vermont Pat Leahy, Congressman French Hill of Little Rock, and civil rights legend Congressman John Lewis-- that would do just that. It would extend the boundary of the Central High historical site to include these seven homes.

It would add about an acre and a half to the park, although I should say this bill would not authorize the Federal Government to take ownership of the homes and wouldn't allow the National Park Service to buy them in the future. Instead, it would simply encourage the homeowners and National Park Service to work together to preserve these homes so future generations could see them and learn from them. That is one reason our bill has the support of the homeowners, the Central High Neighborhood Association, and my State's historic preservation advocacy group, Preserve Arkansas. All three have written to me to express support for the bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have their letters printed in the Record.

There is widespread agreement in the community and in our State that this site is not just a part of Arkansas' history, it is a part of our national heritage.

Central High stands as a reminder of an article Billy Graham published during the crisis, ``No Color Line in Heaven.'' It was a hard-won lesson and one I think we should do everything we can to pass on to the next generation.

Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the majority and minority leaders.

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

Mr. President, over the weekend I heard a story I wanted to share with everyone here today. The story goes that there were three candles burning on a porch right across the street from the Cornwell Funeral Home in Dardanelle, AR--my hometown, just a couple blocks away from my home. A family had lit them in the memory of the three people who were brutally murdered last week in Chickalah, just a few miles outside of Dardanelle.

One of those slain was Lieutenant Kevin Mainhart of the Yell County Sheriff's Department, who was killed after he stopped a man wanted in a domestic disturbance. In honor of his 5 years of service to Yell County--on top of the 20 years of service he rendered to the West Memphis Police Department--his fellow officers escorted in their cruisers the white hearse carrying his body from the State crime laboratory in Little Rock back to Dardanelle.

The family across the street had lit a green candle, specifically for Lieutenant Mainhart, and the three candles burned all the night. But as the hearse pulled into the funeral home, the green candle suddenly went out.

You could say that it was nothing more than a strange coincidence, but I think there is something especially poignant about the sudden, tragic loss of Lieutenant Mainhart's life so close to National Police Week, which began on Sunday. Like that green candle, Lieutenant Mainhart lit up his community, and, like that flickering flame, his life was too brief.

Like every American this week, I wish to pay my respects to Lieutenant Mainhart and the noble profession he chose. One of the things which struck me about Lieutenant Mainhart's death was that it came so early in the morning. The stop occurred at 7:18 a.m. He had the whole day and his whole life in front of him.

He was only 46 years old, but he had made the most of his time on this Earth. He was a husband, a father, an Air Force vet, a beloved member of our community. Hundreds of people don't line the streets for just anybody. Yet, in a moment, he was gone--his family bereft, our community in mourning. It is a reminder of how precious and fragile every life really is.

It also goes to show just how brave every police officer really is, because this is the risk they take every morning. They put on the uniform, they kiss their families good-bye, and they go to work, never fully certain they will get home that night. Yet the ever-present threat of death doesn't hold them down. It doesn't hold them back. It doesn't dim the brilliance of their service. They give it their all, day after day, without giving it a moment's thought. That, to me, is the ultimate sign of character--when you do the right thing without even thinking about it.

People like this are hard to come by. The sad truth is, we need a lot of them. A free country always does, because there is no freedom without security. We are so used to this basic fact--that for most of us, most of the time we are safe--that we forget how remarkable it is. Not so many people on God's green Earth can take that safety for granted. We often forget what it takes to secure it. We forget how easily we can lose it--and lose men and women like Lieutenant Mainhart--in an instant.

It is with this in mind--this grave understanding of what our safety requires--that I once again speak against continued efforts to water down Federal sentencing laws. I thought this ill-advised idea had expired last year, especially after Donald Trump's election. But advocates for criminal leniency are at it again, even though violent crime continued to rise in our cities for 2 years straight, and law enforcement officers are being killed in the line of duty.

I have already made my position clear. If we want to take a second look at punishments for first-time drug possession, let's do that. But we should know that fewer than 500 people are in Federal prison for such offenses. If we want to clean up our prisons, rehabilitate felons, and help them achieve redemption, by all means, let's do that, too. I would even consider a bill to speed up review of inmates' applications for pardons and commutations, to help the President exercise this constitutional authority. But we should not--we should not--lower mandatory minimums for violent crimes, repeat offenders, and drug trafficking. There is nothing compassionate about putting the lives of innocent people--and our law enforcement officers--at risk.

Lieutenant Mainhart isn't the only one. There were three police officers killed in the line of duty last year in Arkansas: Robert Barker in the McCrory Police Department, William Cooper in the Sebastian County Sheriff's Office, and Lisa Mauldin in the Miller County Sheriff's Office. Every one of these losses was too steep a price to pay, and unwise criminal leniency policies put at risk their fellow officers and our communities.

I know it is considered old-fashioned to be tough on crime--or, even worse, cold-hearted and mean. But a man doesn't put a lock on his door because he hates those on the outside. He does it because he loves those on the inside--his wife, his kids, all his family--because they are the joy of his life. The men and women of law enforcement don't just protect their own families--they protect all of our families. Every day those men and women put their lives on the line for their fellow citizens. The least we can do is to stand behind them and support them, both for the work they do and for the lives they lead.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I am speaking tomorrow at an Air Force ROTC commissioning ceremony at the University of Arkansas. As I have been preparing my remarks, I have been thinking a lot about the airmen who have left more than contrails behind them--the men and women who served with such distinction that we still remember them to this day, those great Americans, the heroes of the sky.

The first name that came to mind, the name that resounded louder than almost any other is the great Leo Thorsness, so you can imagine how saddened I was to hear about his passing last week. Whenever you hear such a legend has left the Earth, it is like a sudden crack of thunder in the dead of night. It wakes you up. It sobers you. It reminds you of what we have lost because Leo Thorsness was an American classic.

Born in Walnut Grove, MN, his childhood sounds as idyllic as his hometown. He joined the Boy Scouts and later rose to become an Eagle Scout. He met his wife Gaylee in the freshman registration line at South Dakota State College. They married 3 years later and had one daughter, Dawn. He joined the Air Force, went to flying school, and became a pilot.

Soon, he was a fighter pilot in both the Strategic and Tactical Air Commands. Looking back on his life, we can see Leo Thorsness was part of an era--those burly, self-confident, middle-class families who, after the Great Depression and the greatest of wars, put down roots and built the booming America of the mid to late 20th century.

Of course, Leo was not simply a part of his generation; he inspired it with his courage and self-sacrifice. For many Americans, the only number they remember from the Vietnam years is their draft number. But for Leo Thorsness, there are two numbers that stick out: 88 and 93.

It was on his 88th mission for the Air Force that he performed the noble deeds for which he would later receive the Medal of Honor. He was flying an F-105 Thunderchief with his weapons specialist, Harold Johnson. They were escorting fighter bombers targeting a North Vietnamese army barracks. They shot down a MIG, roughed up another, and hit two missile batteries. They were low on ammo and fuel, but they fought on. He continued to scare off MIGs and instructed a tanker plane to refuel another fighter. When he finally landed 70 miles south in Thailand, the fuel tank was on empty. It was a stunning act of bravery.

It was on his 93rd mission, just seven shy of completing his tour of duty,

that Leo Thorsness was shot down. He was captured and spent 6 years in the ``Hanoi Hilton''--6 years in the darkness. It was there that he met his cellmate, our colleague and future Senator, John McCain.

Imagining 6 days in such a terrible place is more than most people can handle, never mind 6 years. But Leo Thorsness endured; he saw the mission through. When he returned in 1973, it was to an astonished and grateful nation, but the man himself was unfazed. He called his wife after being released and said: ``I would have called sooner, but I've been all tied up.''

He later went on to serve in the Washington State Senate and run for other offices. But his legacy is not one of the titles he won; it is the example he set.

He was quite a man, Leo Thorsness. And though we have lost him, we will keep his memory for a good long time to come.

Leo Thorsness, rest in peace.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am going to be voting no on this 1,700- page bill.

I am not blind to some of the good parts of the bill. It includes last year's Intelligence Authorization Act, and it includes some parts of the bill that I worked on that would counteract Russian activities in the United States and Europe--provisions that were blocked by the Obama administration since they refused to ever get tough on Russia.

It increases defense spending, although not to an adequate degree in relation to the threats we face.

For the first time in years, it recognizes that every dollar we spend on defense doesn't have to be matched by another dollar elsewhere in our budget.

Now, there are parts of this bill that got dropped that I would like to have seen, for instance, blocking Federal funding for sanctuary cities. We might as well call them ``outlaw cities'' because they refuse to comply with Federal immigration law and turn over illegal immigrants facing deportation to Federal authorities.

But I want to hone in on one particular provision that shows just how bad this process is. In a 1,700-page bill, they don't hide the good things in the bill. They only hide the bad things. So look to page 735, section 543, where you will find an increase in H-2B visas of almost 79,000--a 120-percent increase over the normal annual cap of a so- called seasonal visa program for temporary workers that can take up to 9 or 10 months.

It is not necessary. It has nothing to do with funding the government--nothing. It hasn't been vetted. It hasn't gone through the normal legislative process, which would be the Judiciary Committee, where the chairman and the senior Democrat both have written that they oppose this measure. I don't even know how it got in there. I don't know if it was the chairman or the ranking member. They may not know. It is 1,700 pages, after all. It takes hours to even figure out what it means because it is so complicated in language.

But this is what it does: It takes jobs away from American workers and abuses the immigrants that come into this country.

In the past 10 years, the Department of Labor has found 800 employers--800--that have abused 23,000 guest workers--everything from stealing their wages, demanding bribes for their visas, and even sexual abuse--and those are only the ones that have been caught. That is because unlike American workers, these immigrant workers cannot leave their job. If they are fired, they go back to their home country, where they often have huge families who are depending on them for their remittances. Their employers know that, and they take advantage of them. It is a newfangled form of indentured servitude.

Some people in this institution complain about the way Arab countries treat guest workers from South Asia and Southeast Asia. The conditions under which some of these H-2B workers operate are hardly much better. They live in filth and squalor. They are charged exorbitant fees for their housing and for their food. The employers largely get away with it because they know that these immigrant workers will not complain. They will not go to the authorities. They will not report it to the Department of Labor because if they do, they go back to their home country.

Those are just the immigrant workers. What about the American workers? There are a lot of reasons why unscrupulous American employers favor temporary guest workers. They don't have to pay payroll taxes on them, for instance. They don't have to pay unemployment taxes on them. But the real reason is that those guest workers have virtually no leverage to demand higher wages. As I said, they can be sent home because they are tied to a single employer. Americans have more bargaining power. If they can get a better wage down the road, then they will go down the road. If they get better benefits, they can go to a new job, but those guest workers cannot.

So the employers who abuse the H-2B program go to the greatest lengths to avoid hiring an American worker. The program says you have to advertise for the jobs in advance, and they do, hundreds of miles away in obscure newspapers that have nothing to do with the employer's local economy.

Many employers discourage Americans from applying in the first place. Remember, these are unskilled labor positions--unskilled. These are not high-tech jobs, but unskilled guest workers. They subject American workers to the most extreme, unreasonable, extraneous tests before they hire them--tests they do not give to those foreign guest workers because they can pay them lower wages. When they finally are forced to hire an American worker, because they face penalties from the Department of Labor if they don't, they try to make conditions as bad as possible for them so they can fire them and then replace them with a foreigner.

A lot of arguments for this kind of program boil down to this: No American will do that job. That is a lie. It is a lie. There is no job that Americans will not do. There is no industry in America where a majority of workers are not native born, American citizens, or first generation lawful immigrants--not landscapers, not construction workers, not ski instructors, not lifeguards, not resort workers--not a single one. If the wage is decent and the employer obeys the law, Americans will do the job. If it is not, then, they should pay higher wages. To say anything else is an insult to the work ethic of the American people who make this country run.

We just had an election in which the President distinguished himself more on immigration than on any other single issue. We all realize that, right? We all realize that uncontrolled mass migration is upending the politics and societies all across Europe. My colleagues realize that, right? What is it going to take for the people in Washington, DC, to realize just how out of touch they are when it comes to protecting the jobs and the wages of American workers?

I will vote no, and I will say that today is not the day when Washington realizes just how out of touch they are.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to highlight what I consider an unsung achievement of this administration and this Congress--the slow but steady rollback of the last administration's midnight regulations.

The numbers are impressive. Using the Congressional Review Act, we have repealed 13 regulations so far, which adds up to a $3.6 billion reduction in regulatory costs. To put it in more human terms, we have saved the American people 4.2 million hours of paperwork, which I can tell you is more than welcome news in Arkansas.

The other thing about these resolutions we have passed is that they are permanent. We haven't simply put these regulations on pause for a future President to revive them with a pen and phone. No, we have outlawed them forever. Any President who wants to reimpose them and their huge costs will have to pass a new law to do so, making the rules we live under and the people who make them accountable to the voters. That is a bit of a foreign concept to the people in Washington these days. But the way I see it, that is all the more reason to celebrate what we have achieved.

I know the other side will say: This is a dark day for America. To hear them tell it, blotting out all these regulations will leave a dark stain on our law books. To them, this rollback is a throwback to a dangerous, rough-and-tumble era--one filled with dirty air, dirty water, and a frighteningly low quality of life. But it just ain't so.

Stop and take a look at the regulations we have repealed, and then ask yourself: Why should Washington decide how we evaluate our teachers? Shouldn't parents, States, and cities do that? Why shouldn't States be able to test for drugs before handing out unemployment insurance? Is that such an unreasonable request? Why are bureaucrats who are sitting in an office thousands of miles away managing our land and wildlife? Shouldn't it be the people who live right there?

Why should Federal bureaucrats be able to override a law duly passed by Congress and signed by the President? Do any of these regulations add much to our quality of life?

Is this really about protecting the public interest? Or is it more about rewarding special interests? In fact, I can understand why liberals are bewildered at the idea that all these rules are hurting jobs, because these rules certainly are creating jobs--for lawyers and lobbyists. If there had been a bill, it would have been called ``The American Bar Association Full Employment Act.''

That, perhaps, is the real issue here. It is not a question of whether we are going to live under rules. We have rules--plenty of them. The question is this: What kinds of rules are we going to live under? Are we going to pass laws that impose costs on rural America, only to add more wealth to urban America? Are we going to kill blue- collar jobs so we can create more white-collar jobs? Or are we going to pass laws that help all Americans in all walks of life, as we should?

When you look at things this way, I would say we have scored a pretty impressive victory, indeed, over these last 3 months.

I yield the floor.