John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we are living in historic times. The 115th Congress will be the first time in a decade that Republicans have held both Chambers of Congress and the White House. Before the George W. Bush administration in the early part of this century, you would have to go back to the Eisenhower administration--I believe it was 1953--to find a comparable time of Republican control. Interestingly, for the history buffs who may be listening, there have actually been 14 times since 1945 when we have had single-party majorities in both Houses and the White House. Eleven of those times have been our Democratic colleagues and three times have been Republicans. So I come back to where I started in saying these are truly historic times. This morning, our Republican conference met to elect our leadership team to serve in the next Congress during this extraordinary time. After gaining the majority 2 years ago, it has been a pleasure to look back and see what we have been able to accomplish even with the President from the opposing party in the White House. Yesterday I mentioned the rewrite of No Child Left Behind, which sent more authority back to the States, parents, and teachers to make education decisions for children in kindergarten through 12th grade. I also mentioned passing a long-term highway bill for 5 years--something we hadn't been able to do for a long time. Those are just two concrete examples of how, working together, we can tackle big, intractable problems. Frankly, nothing happens in the Senate unless it is bipartisan. We also passed some other important legislation, something negotiated by the majority leader in the House at the time, Nancy Pelosi, or Leader Pelosi, and Speaker John Boehner, which was the reform of our Social Security laws in terms of how doctors under Medicare are paid. It is an important item because if doctors are not paid a prevailing fee or competitive fee for their services, they are simply not going to see Medicare patients and seniors are not going to have access to the care they deserve. We passed a bill sanctioning North Korea for its nuclear program and its human rights abuses. We also passed legislation to better support our troops, who fight and put themselves in harm's way to keep us safe every day. I am grateful to our Republican colleagues for voting to continue the direction of progress for the American people by reelecting their current leadership, including the senior Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell. As all of us have, I have had the honor to serve alongside Senator McConnell for several years now, although I have served for the last 4 years as the whip or the right hand of the majority leader when it comes to trying to corral votes and trying to promote our legislative agenda. I found the majority leader to be a wise and steady hand in a town marked by the absence of those virtues, among many. So I am proud to serve with him in the next Congress, as I am with all of our colleagues, and in his case as the majority leader, as his assistant. We also had a chance, having come back together after the election, to talk about the future and to talk about our agenda going forward. Yesterday I pointed out several legislative priorities at the top of the list--policy items we have to get right on behalf of the American people--such as confirming a Supreme Court Justice who will interpret the laws as we write them and as the Constitution is written, rather than as another policymaking branch of government. We have also promised we would repeal and replace ObamaCare, which was a failed experiment--failed because the President, when he promoted it, said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. He said: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. And he said: An average family of four will see their premiums go down $2,500. None of that has been proven to be true. So it is very important we keep that promise of repealing ObamaCare and then replace it on a step-by-step basis over a transition period with more affordable health care that will preserve the choices in health care through Americans and their families and not Washington, DC. And then there is the matter of legislation. After our Democratic friends lost their 60-vote majority in the Senate and the Republicans flipped the House, providing for a divided government, the one thing that has characterized the Obama administration has been its Executive actions and overregulation. In August, it was reported the President and his administration had issued 600 major regulations with a pricetag of more than $740 billion. If there is one thing I hear from my constituents back in Texas-- small business owners and the like--it is that they are feeling the strangling effect of overregulation, along with the cost of compliance and the uncertainty that goes along with it. So it is no surprise to see that our economy has essentially flatlined and not been growing because none of this is good for the small business owners we are relying upon to create jobs and opportunities, and it is not good for American families looking for those jobs in order to provide for their families and simply put food on the table. So we are eager to roll back those expensive, and in many instances unnecessary, certainly in every instance burdensome regulations so the economy can have some breathing room and begin to grow again. Many of us are interested in addressing tax reform as well. There is bipartisan consensus that our Tax Code is simply too complex and counterproductive. In fact, it is literally a self- inflicted wound when it comes to forcing $2 trillion-plus overseas that American-based companies would like to bring back, but the reason they do not is they would be subject to double taxation, first, in the country where the money has been earned and, secondly, when they bring it back to the United States. Rather than do that, many of them will leave that money overseas. That means that rather than investing in American jobs and American infrastructure, they are literally investing in jobs overseas and in building infrastructure to support their facilities in other countries. That makes no sense whatsoever. So tax reform is high on our agenda. I believe, and I am optimistic, that at a time when everybody understands our Tax Code has simply gotten too complex, too expensive, and too counterproductive, we will be able to make some real progress. Coming from a border State, I can tell you I am delighted to hear President Elect Trump talk about the importance of border security. In a post-9/11 world, it is simply critical we know who is coming into our country and make sure they do so only by legal means. So securing our border is something we need to deal with, and thank goodness there is no shortage of good ideas. Chairman Mike McCaul of the House Homeland Security Committee has a bipartisan bill I think would make great progress along those lines, but obviously we are going to have to have an important discussion among all Members of Congress and the administration about how best to accomplish the goal. We also need to remember our ports of entry are where legitimate trade and travel occur, and we should do nothing to impede that because legitimate trade and travel are very important to our economy. The U.S. economy enjoys about 6 million jobs as a result of trade between the United States and Mexico alone. So I look forward to working with the administration and with our colleagues to make sure we secure our border against illegal immigration, including human trafficking, drug trafficking, and the potential violence that goes along with that, while making sure our legitimate trade and travel at our ports of entry are supported so we can benefit from those as well. Of course, as we debated earlier this Congress, having an updated and efficient infrastructure is vital to the health and well-being of our economy. I mentioned the Transportation bill we passed. A long-term Transportation bill will provide for some of that, but certainly not all that is necessary. We need to take a look at the proposals the President-elect is going to send our way, but there is no shortage of good ideas being discussed both in the House and the Senate as well. I look forward to learning more about those, but one thing that hasn't been talked about very much is how we are going to pay for it, and that is going to be an important item to discuss as well. Frankly, we can't keep spending our kids' and grandkids' inheritance or at least forcing upon the younger generations the obligation to pay for bills we incur today. One of the things I hope will occur as a result of this historic election is that we will have the courage and the willingness to sit down and come up with structural solutions to our financial situation, which is $19 trillion-plus in debt. Because of the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates very low, we are not having to pay huge amounts of money in order to service that debt or pay interest to the people who own that debt, but that is going to change if the Federal Reserve begins to raise interest rates, and we are going to find ourselves paying more and more money to service that debt to the bondholders and less and less of that money will be available for our priorities domestically, whether they be national security or other investments in things such as medical research and the like. So finding out how we can crack that nut and come together on a bipartisan basis, working with the White House to deal with our long- term fiscal problems and continuing to meet the needs of our Nation are going to be challenging but exhilarating to do. Many are talking about the next steps and what should and shouldn't happen in light of the new political reality, but what is clear to me today is that Republicans are united by a strong desire to listen to the concerns of the American people and to deliver results--results that make their lives easier and our collective futures stronger. I want to say that as committed as the majority party is to that, we can't do this without the cooperation and consensus building that comes along as part of the legislative process. Unfortunately, we have seen the last years characterized by obstruction and filibusters and blocking things that essentially have already received bipartisan support. I am talking particularly about the appropriations process. One of the terrible things that happened this last year in the Congress is the Appropriations Committees have gotten back to work on a bipartisan basis. We would see bills coming out at a fiscally responsible level, with agreed-upon spending caps and Democrats and Republicans supporting them, only to see them dead on arrival on the floor of the Senate. That is the kind of mindless obstructionism I hope we can avoid going forward. Just from the conversations I have had as a result of this election, many of our Democratic colleagues appear to be willing to work with us. Certainly, with the new leadership on the Democratic side of the aisle, I am more optimistic than I have been in a long time that we can come together while maintaining our strongly held convictions and principles--I am not talking about compromising those but rather working together when we can--and try to develop more ideas to better serve the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about the election of November 8 and the opportunities we have, working together going forward, to turn the direction of the country around. Unfortunately, I found myself sitting here listening to the latest tirade by the Democratic leader against the President-elect and his team. Surely he is entitled to his opinion, but he does nothing to contribute to the healing of our country after a very polarizing, hotly contested election by continuing to pile on the President-elect and his team. We had an election. The American people voted. The American people chose their next President. But to come here after the election, after the American people have spoken and made that choice, and continue to disparage their choice for the next President, as well as the leadership in the House and the Senate, really just smacks of--well, we used to call people like that sore losers. But, frankly, what he does is he also contributes to the coarsening of our discourse and debate here in the Senate. I had to check the Standing Rules of the Senate to see whether rule XIX, which governs the terms of debate, would cover the President or the President-elect because certainly--when the Senate rules say that ``no Senator in debate shall directly or indirectly by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming of a Senator,'' certainly the Democratic leader's comments, although not technically within the ambit of the rule, violate the spirit of the rule and the sort of debate and discussions we ought to be having here in a civilized and civil and dignified sort of way. I realize the Democratic leader will be leaving the Senate at the end of this year. I hope we can return to the sort of civil and dignified discourse and differences of opinion that we surely will have from time to time about matters of policy. This is the Senate, for heaven's sake. This is where those differences are supposed to be debated and litigated and discussed and then we vote. But the sort of recriminations that the Democratic leader keeps coming back to just strike me as inappropriate and uncalled for. Rather than contribute to the sort of healing of our Nation that Secretary Clinton--who, by the way, had more to complain about than the Democratic leader does in terms of the outcome; she ended up on the short end of the stick--or the President of the United States, President Obama--the comments they have made, the gracious comments recognizing the importance of a peaceful transition of power from one Presidency to another--that is the sort of tone I wish we would hear more of here in the Senate and in the country generally, not pour gasoline on the fire, as the Democratic leader continues to do. It is true that we had an earth-shaking event occur on November 8-- the election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the United States. I believe the reason Mr. Trump was elected is because the American people want change. They are eager for Washington to tackle the big challenges we are facing as a nation, from terror threats abroad to a stagnant economy here at home. They are looking forward to an administration that believes the rules apply to all of us equally-- in other words, equal justice under the law, not that a separate set of rules applies to the Washington elites or those who can get away with it, that a different set of rules applies to them than applies to the rest of us in the country. They want equal justice under the law. They want restoration of the rule of law--something we have not seen in the outgoing administration because of an overpoliticized Department of Justice, among many other reasons. I personally look forward to working with the President-elect in the years ahead to address issues that are important to my State and to families across the country. I am grateful, as well, that the American people have entrusted such a big task to Republicans, who will lead both Chambers of Congress. In an election year that no one could predict--in fact, almost every prediction I made was wrong--in an election year where very few people were right about their predictions as to the ultimate outcome, we see a clear theme emerge: People want something different from business as usual when it comes to politics. They want us to shift gears. They felt it was necessary to get the country back on the right track. I agree with them. I will note the one thing the American people did not want to change, and that is the Republican majority of the Senate. That led to the reelection of Republican Senators in States such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, in addition to the new Member of our conference from the great State of Indiana. I look forward to welcoming all of them, as well as our new Democratic colleagues, and invite them to work with us to try to meet the challenges of these times and to work together to solve the challenges and problems that confront the American people. But it is very clear that the American people wanted a change in the White House. They did not want to change Republican majorities in both Chambers of Congress. They did not want to do that. Voters were able to cut through the noise and see what we have been able to accomplish so far--not that they gave us the Good Housekeeping seal of approval, but they have seen a difference in the last 2 years under a Republican majority in the Senate, and apparently they saw enough that they liked that they wanted to keep us in the majority. They have seen a Senate that has prioritized the American people, that has carefully and methodically returned the Senate back to the basics of doing our job, which is legislating. That includes passing key pieces of legislation through Congress, like the first multiyear highway bill in a decade. I realize that does not excite a lot of people, but it is the basic fundamental job of the Senate and the Congress to legislate, to deal with our infrastructure needs, as the Democratic leader talked about. We actually did deal with some of our major infrastructure needs by passing the first multiyear highway bill in a decade, which is important to our economy, to public safety, and to the quality of the environment. That represents a substantial accomplishment. We also passed the first education reform law since No Child Left Behind, which was admittedly controversial. We repealed the common core mandates and devolved more authority from Washington, DC, back to the States, back to our school administrators and parents and teachers where it belongs. We should have learned by now the hard way that when somebody has a bright idea here in Washington, DC, that has not been tried and tested across the rest of the country in the laboratories of democracy known as our States, we are just as likely to get it wrong. I would say Exhibit No. 1 or A for that is ObamaCare. Trying to take one-sixth of our economy and transform it in a way that does not get the buy-in of both political parties, much less the American people, only to see those promises not kept--that does nothing to promote public confidence in their government. We did pass the Every Student Succeeds Act, which does send some of that power back home. We have done a number of other things, including one that I am particularly proud of, which was to help root out human trafficking and protect the victims of this heinous crime--the first major human trafficking legislation passed perhaps in 25 years, and more resources are now available to the victims of human trafficking so that they can begin to heal. We proved that we could get some things done--not as much as we would have liked but some substantial things. As the Presiding Officer knows, lifting the crude oil export ban has been very important to the energy producers here in the United States and will go a long way to making sure they get a fair price for their product on the world markets. It will also give us a chance to help some of our allies around the world against whom energy is used as a weapon by people who would cut off their supply to electricity, oil, gas, and other energy sources as a way to keep them in tow. We also passed major legislation to address the growing opioid epidemic hurting families across the country. Under Republican leadership, the Senate saw all 12 appropriations bills pass out of their respective committees for the first time since 2009 and the first balanced budget passed since 2001. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues saw fit to filibuster those Senate appropriations bills, which is why we are here after the election in the waning days of 2016 to try to make sure that we pay the bills and keep the government up and running in a lameduck session. This is not a great way to do business, and this isn't our first choice. But because of the filibuster of those appropriations bills-- even though they passed out by overwhelming bipartisan majorities and represent policies that are agreed to by both political parties--here we are. We have also had more participation on a bipartisan basis by Members of the Senate in the legislative process. There were more votes on amendments--more than 250 during this Congress. This is because of the determined leadership of our majority leader, Senator McConnell, who has seen fit to restore the power to committee chairmen to have the freedom and flexibility to lead their committees while allowing Members, on a bipartisan basis, to contribute to legislation before it comes to the floor and is subject to further action. I believe the result is the creation of solid legislation that will stand over time-- not partisan or ramming legislation through because you can do it but building consensus and trying to address problems on a step-by-step basis. With the election behind us, the Senate can begin looking to next year. We are eager to finish our work this year, which I am sure we will shortly, and are looking to what we might be able to do with what the American voters have given us in terms of majorities in both Houses and President-Elect Trump. As I said, I look forward to working with the new President to improve the lives of the men and women working day in and day out across the country. This is an exciting moment for them and for us. It is good news that we have been provided this opportunity. Fortunately, the Senate will continue to have a major role to play. Over the last few months, we spent a lot of time talking about what was at stake in this election. At the forefront was the U.S. Supreme Court. So I look forward to hearing who President Trump will nominate to fill the seat being vacated by the death of Justice Scalia. I hope that the Senate Judiciary Committee will take that nomination up on a timely basis and that we will quickly move forward once the nomination is made. We have a lot more work to do. Over the last 8 years, the Obama administration has been marked by a go-it-alone attitude. Remember, the President said he had a phone and a pen, and he was quite prepared to act and not consult with Congress. Of course, that resulted in a flood of Executive orders and unilateral actions that won't live out his term of office. When he becomes President, I am confident President-Elect Trump will reverse many of those Executive orders, and we will work with the administration to repeal much of the overregulation that is strangling small businesses and our economy. Going into this year's Presidential election, we all knew that the President-elect would have a decision to make--either to shore up President Obama's policies and further those burdensome regulations that were created by his administration or to rip up those that are in place or were put in place unilaterally and instead work with Congress on a bipartisan basis. After all, we are the elected representatives of the American people. It is our firm desire to unleash the sleeping giant of the American economy, and I believe we can, given the outcome of this election. Fortunately, President Trump appears to be eager to work with us to help grow American jobs, strengthen our economy, and make sure that the next generation is better off than those before it. As I said, that means pushing back on harmful regulations that have been promulgated by, for example, Obama's Environmental Protection Agency. It certainly means repealing ObamaCare, a law that was jammed through on a party- line vote and that has not worked as it was promised to work. We have a lot of work ahead of us. I believe we also have a mandate from the American people, who are sick and tired of business as usual, ready for change and for a government that works for them and not against them. I look forward to being part of that change. I am grateful the American people have given us the opportunity to serve. I yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday we finally were able to move legislation forward that would keep the lights on here in Washington, at least until December, and provided very important relief that I want to emphasize. There is flood relief for States like Texas, but not just Texas-- Maryland, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Iowa, all of which will benefit from the flood relief that is provided for in this continuing resolution that was passed yesterday and was passed by the House as well. More importantly, perhaps, is the support for veterans programs and military construction. It is important that we pass legislation to meet our responsibilities to support our men and women in uniform wherever they may be serving, whether here at home or abroad. Thanks to the leadership of the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from New Hampshire, we passed legislation that will provide additional funds to deal with the opioid epidemic that is ravaging many parts of our country. As a medical doctor, the Presiding Officer knows that people unfortunately get hooked on opioid prescription drugs. Frequently, when that runs out, they often opt for cheaper, more plentiful heroin, which, when mixed with other ingredients such as fentanyl, makes it even more deadly and more likely that they will overdose with the use of this heroin laced with fentanyl. We have provided additional funds in this continuing resolution to deal with that. Finally, but very significantly, we also were able to break the impasse over funding for Zika. As we have come to learn, Zika is a mosquito-borne virus that has the potential of causing terrible birth defects in children. We have seen pictures of children with shrunken skulls from the microcephaly caused by this terrible mosquito-borne virus. We had been trying since last May to get that Zika funding done. For some reason, even though the amount of the funding, $1.1 billion, was agreed upon, our Democratic colleagues wouldn't take yes for an answer. Finally, yesterday, they decided to give up their filibuster and allow this legislation and this important funding to be done. My point is that we could have done this a long time ago. In fact, we wouldn't have had to pass the continuing resolution taking us over to December--just 10 weeks from now, when we will have to start all over again--if it weren't for the obstructionism and filibustering of our Democratic colleagues. Of course, the cause of this is a fight over Federal spending. We know there are caps on discretionary spending, and many of our Members, myself included, have become very concerned in this very dangerous world we live in that we have shortchanged our military and our national security support. So in order to get additional spending for our troops abroad and at home and to make sure that we are prepared for the next threat to our country, we increased spending for the Department of Defense, but the costs of doing that were increases in nondefense discretionary spending. Thus we get back into the same old fight, which unfortunately has left us $19 trillion in debt, where spending is simply out of control. That is the reason we ended up in this posture. It is highly regrettable. Nobody would have chosen this--certainly I wouldn't have--as a first option. Now we are going to be confronted with the responsibility in December of passing appropriations bills that will take us through the next year, through the end of the fiscal year. So we have this resolution taken care of. It is behind us now, and that looms large ahead of us. I want to mention some of the good work being done in Texas by folks like the Harris County Mosquito & Vector Control unit. A few weeks ago, I had a chance to go on the rounds with them and set some of the traps for various mosquitoes. Actually, I got this idea from listening to Mike Rowe, who has this ``Dirty Jobs'' series, and I noticed one of them happened to be mosquito control. It occurred to me that maybe there was something for me to learn about how local leaders like those in Harris County identify these mosquitoes that bear this Zika virus and how they deal with it. I got a firsthand look at how much work it takes for our local public health officials to protect our communities from mosquito-borne viruses. It is not just about Zika. It is also about the West Nile virus, which unfortunately has taken the lives of some Texans in the past, as well as other diseases such as dengue fever. The Presiding Officer knows all of them. Our folks at the local level do have their work cut out for them. They trap these mosquitoes every day to test them for the virus, and they spend a lot of time educating the public about how to better protect themselves. I walked around with them, and they pointed out places where water has been pooled in old tires or in swimming pools in the backyard or perhaps birdbaths or other places where mosquitoes, if they are given an opportunity, will simply breed. This is one way, by being better educated, that people can help protect themselves from these mosquito-borne viruses by eliminating the breeding ground for these mosquitoes. If you are a woman of childbearing age, being able to dress appropriately, spray yourself with mosquito repellant, and otherwise help yourself while we are waiting for the Federal Government to live up to its responsibility to provide the funds, which now we have finally done, would help. It became clear to me in our visits to Houston that our local officials need more help. More specifically, what they need is the research that will lead to a vaccine. We went through this experience in another context with the Ebola virus not that long ago. It is important that our scientists and researchers develop a vaccine to particularly protect women of childbearing age from the consequences of the Zika virus. We need a whole government response. We finally got one yesterday, one that deploys local, State, and Federal authorities. The funding bill we passed yesterday outlines a way forward for the Federal Government to do its part that will provide funding for communities in Texas and throughout the country. They are already working diligently to safeguard folks against the virus. As I mentioned, it will go a long way in helping local and State officials with prevention efforts and even working to create a vaccine. I am pleased we finally were able to get that done and overcome the impasse created by objections, obstructions, and filibusters of our friends across the aisle. Beyond getting this funding for the Zika research and prevention done, I wish to identify a few other things that we have been able to accomplish. As I came to the floor and said a couple of days ago, the senior Senator from Montana, who happens to head up the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, was caught basically telling the truth when he said that one of the things they are depending on is a narrative to help Democrats in the selection, this false narrative that under the Republican majority, under Republican leadership, we simply hadn't been getting many things done. We have been doing a lot to take care of the Nation's business during the events of the last 2 days, including the Water Resources Development Act that passed with 95 votes, which includes additional funding for Flint, MI, and their lead pipe water challenges. I mentioned the opioid crisis and heroin crisis. Recently, we passed a bill called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act by more than 90 votes. As I mentioned, the junior Senators from Ohio and New Hampshire have provided such great leadership in that area. We also passed other reforms for chemical safety, the so-called TSCA bill, which provides companies with regulatory certainty so they can continue to create products Americans use every day. This bill proves we can responsibly protect the environment at the same time we are growing our economy. This legislation passed the Senate by a voice vote and received more than 400 votes in the House. We also passed legislation to impose stronger sanctions on North Korea in February. It sailed through this Chamber with one ``no'' vote. Of course, we also took care of intractable problems that we had trouble getting any traction on for a long time, major reform bills such as the Energy Policy Modernization Act to help bring our Nation's energy infrastructure up-to-date, as well as to expedite the permitting of liquefied natural gas exports, which the Presiding Officer has worked on a lot. I was just at Sabine Pass. Cheniere has a huge export facility for natural gas. Golden Pass and others are in the process of trying to get their permits, but they have been waiting a long time. This legislation will provide a shot clock, which will hopefully expedite that process. The energy we have been able to produce in this country is a great natural resource for the United States and a great economic engine. To make it available to our friends and allies around the world is very important. The Energy Policy Modernization Act as well as lifting the ban on crude oil, which we did last December, have been very important steps. I was discussing with the senior Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, the important work we did reforming the bill known as No Child Left Behind with the Every Student Succeeds Act. This legislation was very important because many people had the impression that Washington had simply taken control of our K-12 education system. Under his skillful leadership, working with Senator Murray in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, they were able to write a piece of legislation that passed with overwhelming bipartisan margins that would devolve the control of K-12 education back to the States, local school districts, parents, and teachers. It literally removed the common core mandate that so many people had chafed under. We also finally have passed a Medicare payment reform system that had long plagued our medical community. I know many physicians in Texas told me they simply would not be able to take any more Medicare patients--which of course are our senior citizens--because the Federal Government kept cutting their payment rate and the uncertainty created by that. We finally fixed that on a bipartisan basis. Under the new majority in this Congress, we also saw President Obama sign other important laws, such as the Freedom of Information Improvement Act, a bill that will make our government more transparent and more accountable to the people we serve. By an overwhelming 99-to-1 vote, we passed the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, a bill that will help victims of human trafficking recover. We will support law enforcement in their fight against active shooters by passing and signing into law the POLICE Act, legislation that allows existing grant programs to be used for police training to deal with active shooter situations. I have traveled all around Texas with local police departments in both urban and rural areas, and they find this training very useful and timely. Unfortunately, it is necessary, in times such as these where we have had to learn from hard experience--if an active shooter is loose, they will continue to kill and people will continue to die unless the police can crash that site, stop the shooter, and then rescue, with emergency medical people, the people who are injured. By all accounts, I have to say the Senate, under Republican leadership, with cooperation from our Democratic colleagues--because of course nothing happens around here unless it is bipartisan. That is the way this place is constructed. That is the way the Constitution is written. I am grateful that under the leadership and steady hand of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, we have gotten back to work and taken care of the country's business. Of course, we still have disagreements like we had over spending bills that led up to this continuing resolution, and in the lameduck it will leave us with having to deal with the long-term spending bills this December, but I simply want to make the point that leadership matters. Under the leadership of Senator McConnell, our committees are now actively producing legislation on a bipartisan basis that is then available to the majority leader to bring to the floor for us to debate, for Senators to offer suggestions for improvement by way of amendment and allow everybody to participate in that process to vote on the legislation and then bring it to the President's desk. I hope we can continue to put sound policy over the sort of partisan politics that left us in the uncomfortable and unenviable position we were in yesterday, trying to meet a deadline to keep the government up and running. With a little cooperation and a little elevation of responsibility to our constituents and the people we serve, rather than partisan politics, I think we can continue to do better. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to start today by offering a word of gratitude to retiring Dallas police chief David Brown, who will retire from his long career of public service this Tuesday. Chief Brown became the face of a terrible tragedy that occurred in Texas a few weeks ago when five police officers were gunned down in cold blood. Frankly, I had many colleagues and other people whom I have run into ask me about him because he made such a positive impression with his calmness under difficult circumstances and his leadership qualities. The incident occurred last July when 12 law enforcement officers were shot, and 5 were killed. I remember attending the memorial service with President Obama and the First Lady, as well as President George W. Bush and Laura Bush, and the chief spoke then along with Mayor Rawlings. I can't tell you how grateful I am that, at a time when people think Washington has lost its way, we still have strong, articulate, compassionate leaders like Chief Brown and Mayor Rawlings. Chief Brown is retiring after 33 years of service to the Dallas police force. As a result of the attention he got from all of the publicity surrounding this terrible tragedy in July, the chief became a little bit of a folk hero, I guess, and people began to listen to what he had to say about a lot of different things. One of the things he would like to say is ``Dallas loves.'' He made that a bit of a rallying cry following the attack. His actions in the aftermath of that tragedy certainly demonstrated his belief in that statement. Of course, while many Americans know Chief Brown from his leadership during the shooting in July, Dallasites have benefited from his service for a long time. He grew up in Oak Cliff in southwest Dallas and has been on the Dallas police force for the last 33 years. I know the people of Dallas will miss his leadership and hearing him sing a little Stevie Wonder from time to time. I want to express my gratitude and thanks to Chief Brown and wish him well in the next chapter of his life.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as the Senate knows, today we are considering the President's misguided decision to veto a piece of legislation that passed this body unanimously by unanimous consent and likewise passed the House of Representatives with no dissenting votes. In our polarized politics of today, this is pretty much a close-to- miraculous occurrence because Democrats and Republicans, Senators and House Members, have all agreed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which gives the victims of a terrorist attack on our own soil an opportunity to seek the justice they deserve--all of us have come together and agreed this is appropriate and the right thing to do. At a time when international terrorism is spreading, FBI Director Comey yesterday warned of a terrorist diaspora. The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act will send a strong message that those who sponsor terrorist attacks on American soil, including foreign governments, will answer to those victims and pay for the death and destruction they cause. Current law already allows for American victims to sue foreign governments for many different offenses committed by their employees-- commercial wrongs, assault, drunk driving, rape, human trafficking, among others. That is already part of existing law. JASTA would clarify that sponsoring an act of terrorism in America is added to that list. If we allowed lawsuits against foreign governments for bar fights, contract breaches, drunk driving, then we should allow the victims of a terrorist attack on our soil the opportunity for their day in court as well. This is an important piece of legislation, and it is straightforward. That is why I believe we got the unanimous support in both bodies that we have. I want to make clear, though, that this has not been a quick process. This legislation has been pending since 2009, and we have worked through a number of Members' concerns they have expressed along the way in order to modify the legislation and build the consensus we now have achieved. There have been many different drafts and feedback from Members, a lot of consultations with family members who have been affected, and a lot has gone into this legislation. That means this bill has been negotiated and hammered out over a long period of time, and that is the reason we were able to garner such strong support from both bodies to get the bill passed. Last Friday, the President chose to ignore the voices of American terrorism victims by vetoing this legislation. Fortunately, today this Chamber will have a choice and have a chance to exercise our constitutional prerogative under article I, section 7 of the Constitution. We will have a chance to act as a check on President Obama to override his veto. I have read President Obama's veto message, and it is not persuasive. That is because it described a bill that doesn't exist and misrepresents the state of the law. He cites concerns that the bill would ``create complications'' with some of our close partners. The truth is, JASTA only targets foreign governments that sponsor terrorist attacks on American soil, plain and simple. I don't know how that would create complications with some of our close partners. The financing of terrorism in the United States is not behavior we should tolerate from any nation, allies included. How can anyone look the families in the eye and tell them they shouldn't have the opportunity to seek justice against a foreign government responsible for the death of their loved one? The President has claimed this legislation would result in a flood of lawsuits against Americans by foreign governments. What the President ignores is that we are already being sued by foreign nations under the current state of the law, but a law like JASTA applied reciprocally will open no such floodgates. The President even had the audacity to claim this legislation might lead to lawsuits against members of the military, but had he read the plain text of the bill, he would know this bill only allows for lawsuits against foreign governments, not individuals. He would also know it contains a specific exemption for our Armed Forces. Finally, JASTA is not a sweeping legislative overhaul that dramatically alters international law. It is an extension of law that has been on the books since 1976. Once again, there are numerous exceptions that prevent foreign governments from shielding themselves from litigation when they cause harm. The President has also complained this applies to conduct committed abroad, but today and for 40 years our law has been replete with immunity exceptions that apply to conduct committed abroad. This bill just adds another exception. At the end of the day, this vote is about doing what is right for the American people. Some of our colleagues have expressed concerns about how it might be interpreted by some of our allies, but the fact is, this legislation does not mention any particular country. All it does is it carves out an exception to this notion of sovereign immunity for conduct committed in a terrorist attack on American soil. The whole idea of sovereign immunity comes from England and our Anglo-American inheritance in our law. The notion is that the King in England could do no wrong so you couldn't sue the government, but we have recognized the injustice that would cause, even in our own country, when Congress has passed numerous exceptions under which the U.S. Government can be sued in our own court, recognizing that equal justice under the law does not create a situation where it should not tolerate a situation where the government was simply immune from litigation and paying its fair compensation in individual lawsuits. This legislation is about pursuing justice and the legal process it continues to serve as a foundation to our Republic. At its core, this bill is about respecting the voices and the rights of American victims. I believe we have many important allies around the world with whom our interests are aligned, but when our interests diverge, and it is a question of protecting American rights and American values, I think we should always do that rather than somehow subjugate those rights and values to the interests of some foreign government. This is not about severing our relationship with any ally. This is simply a matter of justice. This is about respecting the voices and the rights of the American victims. At about noon today, this Chamber should vote overwhelmingly to override President Obama's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act because the families have already suffered too much. They have already suffered untold tragedy, and they deserve to find a path to closure that only justice can provide. I, like many of my colleagues, have had a chance to meet with a number of the families of the victims of 9/11. Their stories are heartbreaking, and I know none of us will forget where we were on that fateful day. Our country has changed undeniably, but for these families, that day and each day serve as a tragic reminder of deep, personal loss. One of these family members whom I have had the chance to get to know is Marge Mathers, who now calls Texas home. Marge's husband Charles worked on the 99th floor of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. She says she turned on the television that fateful day and watched in horror as the tower in which Charles was working collapsed. Marge moved to Texas soon after September 11, but her grieving--and our Nation's grieving--continues and of course will never completely end. Long ago, I pledged to Marge and to other families I have met that I would do my very level best to help them right this wrong and to provide them an opportunity to make their case in a court of law. So we will fix this law by extending this 1976 provision, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, to allow the families and the victims of the 9/11 tragedy to seek justice in a court of law in an American court. These families should have the right to make their case. These families should have the freedom to have their day in court, to have a judge hear their case, and to hold accountable those who played a role in their suffering. That is what this legislation is all about, providing them the freedom to do so. The families of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that occurred in the United States have waited a long time, and I am hopeful they will not have to wait any longer for the opportunity to pursue justice. I hope every Member of this body will join me in supporting this bill one more time and we will vote to override the President's veto and further the cause of justice for these victims. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Absolutely.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about the pending business, but I have to just comment based on what the Democratic leader has said. Apparently, he has so little confidence in his party's nominee for President that he insists on coming to the floor every day that we are in session, trying to assist her by making arguments either she cannot make or that she has not made. We do have pending business that is very important and which I know he would agree is important, and that is to keep the government running past the end of this fiscal year, which ends on Friday. That actually is the subject that I came here to talk about. We are continuing to work on a continuing resolution to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year. The fact of the matter is that we would not find ourselves in this distasteful position were it not for the filibusters of our Democratic colleagues who try to use the leverage and have effectively used the leverage to shut down the normal functioning of the appropriations process in order to gain some leverage to spend more money, notwithstanding the fact that we are $19 trillion in debt. They simply shifted from one excuse to another in order to refuse to do their job, which is actually to work in a bipartisan way through the appropriations process to fund the functioning of the government at agreed-to spending levels. So we are now staring at a Friday deadline to keep the government open. Of course, this was their design all along--to drag their feet, delay, and turn from one excuse to another in order to keep from actually working in a bipartisan way to appropriate the money to fund the government so the government would continue to function. We could have finished this job a long time ago, but our Democratic colleagues simply made it clear that they wouldn't lose any sleep even as we get closer and closer to the funding deadline. This is actually the narrative they hoped for all along. They want to talk about shutdowns or potential shutdowns that they, in fact, could cause, not because of anything that we have done on this side of the aisle. The Appropriations Committee, chaired by Senator Cochran, and the Appropriations subcommittees have voted out on a bipartisan basis all 12 appropriations bills, and they have done their work. Many of them have passed unanimously. Most of them have passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support, which is very encouraging. So our Democratic colleagues have had a lot of participation and a lot of influence, as I know they would want, in the priorities of the Federal Government as reflected in the appropriations bill. Of course, that wasn't good enough, and that didn't meet their underlying need, which is to try to gain any advantage they possibly can when it comes to spending levels or in the upcoming November 8 election, which very much appears to be on the Democratic leader's mind as he continues to come to the floor and talk about the Presidential race rather than the pending business. Of course, now we know that we are running out of time. So the majority leader, Senator McConnell, has now proposed to call their bluff. They said they wanted a clean continuing resolution. As a matter of fact, the Democratic leader said last week that if a clean continuing resolution were brought to a vote, we could ``leave in 10 minutes.'' That is what the Democratic leader said last week. But as of yesterday, we know he changed his tune. He said a clean CR wasn't near enough. He said: ``We want more.'' We will soon have a chance to vote on that clean continuing resolution after lunch. This is the continuing resolution that the Democratic leader said we could pass and leave in 10 minutes. This continuing resolution funds the government at levels this Chamber has already agreed to. There are no riders or anything that the Democrats can claim as controversial. It is a simple continuation of funding at current levels under the same terms that the President has already signed into law last December. It also includes resources for bipartisan priorities like veterans programs, flood control, fighting the opioid epidemic that is devastating communities across our country, and dealing with prevention of the Zika virus--something the Democrats said they wanted money for since last May. Well, this is it. This is the $1.1 billion agreed to on a bipartisan basis. But this is when they shift their argument to something else. We remember that during the summer, our Democratic colleagues were quick to call for action on Zika funding. Ironically, they filibustered a bill that would have provided that funding, but when push came to shove, they flat out refused to act to give communities the funding they need to fight this real health crisis. We know from what has happened in Florida, where they have had domestic infections of people from the mosquitoes carrying the Zika virus in Florida, that it is just a matter of time before this will spread to other parts of the United States, including warmer weather States like mine, in Texas. I have spent some time in Houston, TX, with the mosquito and vector control folks at the Harris County Health Department, where they are monitoring these mosquitoes on a daily basis to see whether there are signs of the Zika virus in those mosquitoes. Thankfully, there is none yet, but they are identifying West Nile virus and other mosquito-borne diseases, and thank goodness for the work and leadership they are showing at the local level. It would be nice if the Nation's congressional leaders would demonstrate similar leadership getting our job done, getting the money to the people who need it and can put it to good use. I have shown the picture of the devastating birth defects caused by the Zika virus in women of childbearing age. It is devastating. How our colleagues across the aisle can continue to block this funding in giving the money that could actually help address this potential health crisis is beyond me. We have given them what they wanted, and they refuse to take yes for an answer. They still talk a lot about it and the urgent need to get it done, while dragging their feet the whole way. The Democratic leader even said at the beginning of this month that we need to handle the Zika threat first and foremost. Well, I guess that is why he continues to delay a vote on the continuing resolution and why they continue to do what they say they are going to do. They are going to block the cloture vote this afternoon, again, because now they have changed the subject. Well, this is their chance to act, to send resources to fight the virus in communities across the country. I am glad the senior Senator from Florida, a Member of the Democratic caucus, has already said that he will support this clean CR, in light of the public health threat Zika poses to his constituents in Florida. He clearly has his priorities straight. It is not politics first and foremost. It is public health. I hope more of his colleagues follow his lead and vote to get on this continuing resolution so we can get our work done and so the money can go to those communities like those in his State and in my State that need it most. Some of our Democratic colleagues say they don't like the continuing resolution because it doesn't allow for funding for the water problems in Flint, MI. But I have to say that this is just another manufactured excuse. It ignores reality. We just passed overwhelmingly the Water Resources Development Act with more than 90 votes in this Chamber. That bill provides funding for the crisis in Flint, MI. The House is taking up their version of the bill this week. The chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, has made it clear he is committed to sending this Water Resources Development Act, including funding for Flint, to the President for his signature. So that excuse doesn't hold any water either. Our Democratic friends may say: Well, that is not included in the House bill. That is true. But with the commitment of the chairman and the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Boxer, who work so well together, there is no way in the world that a conference report is going to come back to the Senate without that Flint, MI, money in the bill. So that excuse doesn't hold water either. Once again, I guess because they think it helps them somehow politically, our Democratic friends are marching this country closer and closer to a shutdown. They have been slow-walking the process, starting months ago when they refused to consider and even pass bipartisan appropriations bills. As I said earlier, these were bills passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. Why in the world would they do that, I guess, perhaps is the question before us. Well, a Member of their leadership implied in yesterday's Washington Post that it is purely for political purposes. I am not naive. I understand politics is part of this process, but clearly the priority of our colleagues across the aisle is not to do their job and to address the funding needs for the Federal Government, including the Zika crisis or even to deal in a bipartisan way with the very issue they have identified, the Flint, MI, issue that is going to get that money to the community. In the article I mentioned in the Washington Post, the senior Senator from Montana, who heads the Democratic campaign committee, gave us just a momentary glimpse into our Democratic friends' playbook this election cycle. He said that in order to win more seats in the U.S. Senate, Democratic candidates need to show that ``Republicans really haven't done anything.'' That was the campaign chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, saying in order for them to win seats, they have to show that under Republican leadership nothing has been done. The facts would show otherwise. This reminds me of the story of a propaganda technique where, if you tell a big enough falsehood and you tell it over and over and over, there are some people who are actually going to believe it. Facts are a stubborn thing. Democrats are marching us down a path that leads to a shutdown in order to gain some sort of political advantage. What a terrible thing to do to this country, to be brought to the brink purely for some perceived, temporary political game. The facts are, under the leadership of Senator McConnell as the majority leader and under a Republican majority, the Senate has been brought back to regular order, which means we are actually doing the people's business. Committee chairmen have had the freedom to flesh out legislation on a bipartisan basis and craft good policy solutions for the American people, rather than have bills cooked up in the Democratic leaders' conference room that have never seen the light of day in any committee and certainly were not bipartisan. That was the record when the Democratic leader was majority leader during the last Congress. We have had more votes on more bills so individual Senators could offer specific ideas on how to make legislation better, and the results speak for themselves. It is a long list, but the Senate has passed much needed overhauls of our education system and our transportation system, both on a bipartisan basis. We have passed bipartisan bills to help root out the dangers to our society from opioid addiction, heroin addiction, and human trafficking. We passed foreign policy measures that have made our country safer, including a bill to impose stronger sanctions on North Korea. Again, it is a long list. Last week, we passed the Water Resources Development Act I was referring to earlier, thanks to the leadership of a Republican, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, and a Democrat, the senior Senator from California. That is the way this process is supposed to work. The point is, until very recently, this Congress has been marked by a willingness of folks on both sides of the aisle to work through the issues and to find a path forward that would represent the best solution for the people we represent, the American people. According to the senior Senator from Montana--in what appears to be an act of desperation--that doesn't make for good campaign strategy in the days leading up to the election, apparently, and now they want to try to sell this propaganda, this gigantic falsehood repeated over and over so people, at some point, at some level, begin to believe it. They want to paint this Congress as ineffective under Republican control. When our friends on the other side of the aisle put the ``d'' in dysfunction during the 113th Congress, that is why the Republicans won the majority in the 2014 election, among other things, because Democratic incumbents running for reelection in 2014 had no record of accomplishment they could point to. That strategy backfired on our Democratic colleagues. You would think they would have learned something from that experience. For example, they had the incumbent Senator from Alaska go home to Alaska and ask to be returned to the Senate. He could not point to a single amendment on a single bill he actually sponsored that received a rollcall vote in the Senate. That is pretty hard to explain, especially when you are in the majority, but that is what happened. You would think our colleagues would have learned something from that. What do they gain by edging our country toward a government shutdown this Friday? I don't see how it helps anyone, but that is why we are here today, staring at a deadline and trying to hammer out a stopgap spending bill--and this only gets us to December 9. Again, the reason we find ourselves having to do this is because they have simply shut down the Senate appropriations process, forcing us into a position that no one who actually has any interest in performing the duties of their job actually likes. This is not the way the Senate is supposed to work, but this is the hand we have been dealt because of their obstruction. I would hope more Democrats would join the senior Senator from Florida and take yes for an answer when it comes to funding the government, when it comes to dealing with Zika, the potential Zika crisis in our country. I hope our colleagues on the other side will reconsider their decision to block the vote this afternoon. We are ready to move forward with the solution our Democratic colleagues have called for, a clean continuing resolution, but again it is like Charlie Brown and the football. Do you remember that cartoon? Every time Lucy would put the football out, she would pull it back at the last minute and Charlie Brown would end up on his back. All we need is a partner who will work with us. I encourage some of our friends across the aisle to reconsider their position. Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act Mr. President, late on Friday afternoon, the President fulfilled his promise to veto the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. I have a hard time understanding the President's rationale. This legislation was approved unanimously in the Senate and in the House. That doesn't happen very often, where Democrats and Republicans, where Senators and House Members, unanimously support a piece of legislation, but tomorrow afternoon we will vote on an override of that veto. President Obama made clear in his message that he doesn't understand how limited and narrow in scope this legislation is. As a matter of fact, he misrepresents what this legislation actually does, which is an extension of current law, and it is well within the bounds of historical practice and modern court guidance under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The victims of terrorism in this country need an ability to seek justice in a court of law. That is all this bill is about. It doesn't identify a single country, and it doesn't purport to decide the merits of the case. All it says is, yes, you can present your case to a judge and a jury in a court of law. Why the President would object to that is lost on me. This legislation will help victims of terrorism on U.S. soil seek compensation. By doing so, it will potentially deter other terrorist acts. If there are consequences associated with sponsoring terrorist attacks on American soil, don't you think this might have some modest deterrence effect, including our counterterrorism measures that our national security forces are engaged in? This also sends an important message that the United States takes care of its own and that we will never tolerate terrorism and we will never ever shy away from the pursuit of justice for Americans. I realize there are some of our colleagues who say: Well, Saudi Arabia or some other country might be upset with us. Frankly, I could care less. We are here to represent the American people, not some foreign country. The fact is, our colleagues--our friends in Saudi Arabia, to the extent that we have aligned interests, we work well together and that will continue despite this veto override. To simply say because some foreign country or some King or some Prince of some other country doesn't like legislation so the President is going to veto it is simply unacceptable, when clearly the American interest here is for these victims of terrorism to find recourse in our courts of law. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2016, at 1 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Reviewing the Proposed Revisions to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2016, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2 p.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SR-328A of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Current State of Farm Economy.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on National Security and International Trade and Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2016, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Terror Financing Risks of America's $1.7 Billion Cash Payments to Iran.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, while he is still on the floor, I just want to tell the Senator from South Carolina how much I appreciate his remarks. I agree with virtually everything he said. He is one of the most knowledgeable and articulate Members of the Congress on national security matters. He knows whereof he speaks and he speaks the truth. Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act Madam President, I have come to the floor a few times this last week to talk about another piece of legislation called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, known as JASTA. This might as well be known as the justice for the 9/11 families bill. I support the position articulated by the Senator from South Carolina and will vote against the resolution of disapproval to block the Saudi arms sale. I believe that is the same position articulated by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, Senator McCain, and the majority leader, Senator McConnell, and I find myself in agreement with each of them. Some might say: Well, how can you agree to maintain the relationship with Saudi Arabia when it comes to providing them with the necessary arms they need in order to fight this proxy war by Iran against the Gulf State allies and at the same time support this Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which some say may be focused on the Saudis. I would like to explain that. First of all, let me just say that when I think about the Senate, I am reminded of the comments made by Robert Byrd, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia who is no longer with us. He wrote books on Senate procedure. He wrote a history of the United States Senate. He was truly a remarkable man. He was also former majority leader of the Senate and a force to be reckoned with. When I came to the Senate, Senator Byrd said, among other things: In the Senate, you have no permanent allies. In the Senate, he said, you have no permanent enemies. I believe what he meant by that was that on a case-by-case basis, people who come from different regions of the country, different States with different interests, will work together where their interests are aligned, and when they are not, they are going to differ--respectfully, I would hope--but they are not going to always do the same thing or see the world in exactly the same way. That doesn't mean we are enemies. That doesn't mean we are adversaries. That is just the way it works. As I think about our relationship with countries such as Saudi Arabia--but it is not just Saudi Arabia, it is all of our international relationships--we are going to agree with them on matters of principle when our interests are aligned. We are. And certainly in the case of this arms sale, our interests are perfectly aligned. Saudi Arabia finds itself in a very rough neighborhood, subjected to violence and war perpetrated by Iran, frequently through proxy groups such as Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other forces, but it is very much in the U.S. interest that Iran not continue to dominate the whole region in the Middle East. Obviously, they have made great strides in dominating and influencing Iraq. Unfortunately, as a result of the misguided nuclear deal negotiated by the White House, Iran is now on a pathway toward a nuclear weapon. One can imagine what our other allies, such as Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States, are thinking. If our No. 1 adversary in the region is going to get a nuclear weapon, we may need to defend ourselves. By what? Well, by getting nuclear weapons. That makes the world a much more dangerous place. My point is, when it comes to relationships between Senators from different States, representing different regions and different interests, even though we sometimes agree with each other, sometimes disagree with each other, that is just the way the Senate works, and that is the way I believe the world works. When our interests are aligned with countries such as Saudi Arabia, we will stand with them, and we hope they will stand with us. When they diverge, we are going to take a little different approach. I believe it is absolutely imperative we override the forthcoming veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act so the families who suffered so much and lost so much on 9/11 can go to court and make the case, if they can, to hold whoever was responsible accountable. That is just as basic as anything in our system of justice. That is not for us to decide. We are not a court of law. The rules of procedure and the rules of evidence don't apply here. Sometimes I wish they did. In court, you can't just introduce hearsay or conspiracy theories and not back them up. They have to be based upon reliable testimony as determined by a judge. That is what the 9/11 families are going to get, is the opportunity to make their case, if they can. I don't know if they are going to be successful, but I do believe one of the most fundamental things about our system of government is the opportunity to try. If you think you have a case to make, present it to the judge and try to make your case. You may win. You may lose. I spent 13 years of my adult life as a trial judge and on an appellate court, the Texas Supreme Court. Maybe I just became too familiar with how courts operate. Maybe I have more confidence in the ability of the courts to sift through these matters and get to the bottom of them than some of my other colleagues do, but I have confidence, by and large, in the Federal judiciary, and I believe under the oversight of a good Federal judge, they are going to enter the appropriate sort of protective orders necessary to protect people sued against overreaching and fishing expeditions when it comes to discovery, for example. The judge is going to make sure everybody plays by the rules and does not take unfair advantage. So enough about that. But I believe, unlike a few of my colleagues whose comments I have read about, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act does not target a specific country. As I have mentioned time and time again, we don't even mention a specific country in the legislation. All it does is extend a law dating back to 1978--the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act--and it says that in a narrow set of facts, you may be able to sue a foreign government. In this case, if you sponsor or facilitate a terrorist attack on American soil, you will have been deemed by law to have waived your sovereign immunity and you will be held accountable in court. Again, I have read the 28 pages that remain classified from the 9/11 report. I have read other responses from our law enforcement and intelligence authorities. I can't talk about that here. I will not talk about that here. I believe the families do deserve an opportunity to make their case, and I trust that we will override the President's veto once it arrives here after Friday. But it is absolutely imperative that we keep our promises to our allies like Saudi Arabia, particularly where it serves our own national security interests. They live in the region. They are working as a counterbalance and a check on Iranian hegemony. As the Senator from South Carolina noted, Iran is the biggest troublemaker, not only in the Middle East but maybe on the planet. They have been trying to wipe Israel off the map using proxy forces like Hezbollah and Hamas. Obviously, they have been working their mischief in Iraq. After Saddam Hussein was deposed, President al-Maliki was put in place, but unfortunately because of his favoritism toward the Shia Muslims and his opposition to Sunni Muslims, he essentially joined common cause with Iran. Now we find ourselves in the unenviable position, as U.S. military forces that are training and assisting Iranian security forces--as they march forward to Mosul to take that back from the Islamic State, we are literally going to be fighting side by side with Iranian militias directed by the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. It is outrageous that we find ourselves in this situation. I encourage our colleagues to vote against the resolution of disapproval. This bill would keep the United States from supporting Saudi Arabia in ways that benefit our country strategically. As we have heard, that includes tanks and other equipment to help the Saudis maintain control of their border in a very dangerous and tumultuous part of the world and most importantly to help them protect themselves from an emboldened Iran that is awash in cash as a result of the President's misguided, bad nuclear deal in lifting sanctions on the Iranians. In the long run, I think voting for this bill would actually help Iran and strengthen its hand, and I certainly cannot and will not support that. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.