John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2015, at 9:45 a.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights, and Federal Courts be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2015, at 2 p.m., in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Revisiting IRS Targeting: Progress of Agency Reforms and Congressional Options.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Role of Bankruptcy Reform in Addressing Too-Big- To Fail.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2015, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Financial Crisis in Greece--Implications and Lessons Learned.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Ending Veteran Homelessness.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2015, at 10 a.m.

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 July 29, 2015, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the True Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in Native Communities.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2015, at 10 a.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2015, at 9 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act: Combating Campus Sexual Assault.''

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we all know the Chamber is engaged in the passage of a multiyear highway bill--not just highways, but this deals with mass transit, transportation infrastructure in general. To me, the most important thing about what we are doing is the fact we are not going to do another temporary patch--which we have done, I am told, 33 times--but we actually are going to pass a 3-year highway bill. To me, the best news, I would say to the Presiding Officer, is now it looks as if we have the House thoroughly engaged, so it is not just a question of this bill or nothing. Perhaps, if experience is any guide, we can come up with something even better by collaborating with our House colleagues. I wanted to come to the floor and talk a little bit about the impact of this bill on my State, the State of Texas, because we are a fast- growing State. We have about 27 million people there now. People are moving from around the country to Texas because our economy is growing. Last year, our economy grew at the rate of 5.2 percent. To compare that to the Nation, last year the Nation's economy grew at 2.2 percent. What does that mean? That means there are a lot more jobs and a lot more opportunities, so people are literally voting with their feet, leaving the States where there are limited opportunities and coming to States such as Texas where there are more opportunities. But that means more congestion, more traffic, and more challenges when it comes to our roadways, our rural freight routes, and it means challenges for our economy. Many States, of course, would be delighted to have the problems we are having because, frankly, people are moving away from many States, not to many States. I know the Presiding Officer's State of Oklahoma is experiencing economic growth and job growth too because we share a common interest and sector of our economy, the energy economy, which the rest of the country would do well to learn from the examples in Oklahoma and Texas as part of our economic success story. As others have mentioned, one of the chief reasons this bill has so much enthusiasm behind it is because it gives freedom and flexibility to the States to plan for infrastructure needs in the future. It perhaps should go without saying, but a 6-month patch, if we were to kick this over until December, doesn't give anybody any certainty to plan these long-term infrastructure projects which take literally not months but years. As I said, for a State such as Texas that is growing rapidly--by some estimates 600 people a day are moving to the State--improving our roadways and bridges is vitally important for the continued growth of our economy and increased prosperity for our people, and we have the practical challenge of handling a growing number of cars and trucks on our roads. One way this bill gives added freedom and flexibility to the States is through a provision that would help Texas and other border States meet their growing infrastructure needs, particularly at the southern border, with improvements that are not only necessary to get us and goods from point A to point B, but to keep us safe as well. Frequently, when we talk about the border, we talk about border security. That is a very important consideration and, frankly, we have not committed the Federal resources we should to border security to make sure we know who is coming into the country and why they are here. Of course, we know that recently, even in the news, people have continued to penetrate our border, even those with criminal records, causing havoc and, indeed, committing crimes against innocent people such as occurred recently in the terrible incident that happened in San Francisco. Our border, border infrastructure, and border security are the front lines of our defense, to keep our people safe, to regulate who comes into the country, and to make sure that only legitimate people can enter. The question is--as one law professor recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, when it comes to immigration, there is really only one question: Are you going to have controlled immigration or uncontrolled immigration? It is basically that simple. I am on the floor to talk about transportation and the importance of this bill in terms of the border infrastructure when it comes to trade and commerce, but as I mentioned, it also is an important frontline when it comes to the safety and security of the American people. We are fortunate in Texas to be the top exporting State in the Nation. That is one of the reasons our economy has grown faster than the rest of the country. The agricultural products that are grown there, the livestock that is raised, and the manufactured goods that are made are exported to markets all around the world, which creates good jobs, well-paying jobs at home. It also takes good infrastructure to move more than $100 billion in exported goods from Texas to Mexico each year, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs in Texas alone. It is estimated, when you look at the Nation as a whole, that binational trade between Mexico and the United States supports as many as 6 million American jobs. That is something we frequently overlook when we talk about our relationship with our neighbor south of the border and immigration, and that is there are many benefits to legal trade, traffic, controlled legal immigration, and, indeed, as I mentioned, $100 billion of exported goods from Texas to Mexico each year supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs. In this bill, by allowing Texas and other border States more flexibility in long-term planning of border projects, consumers and workers can benefit as goods are shipped more efficiently back and forth. Our border infrastructure is essential to moving massive amounts of trade, which travel through our ports of entry every day. For Texas and the United States to remain competitive, the border region must have the quality infrastructure to truck, train, and ship billions of dollars' worth of goods efficiently and safely. Doing nothing to invest in transportation at the border is not a viable option. A recent report from the Texas State Legislature found that $116 million in U.S. economic output is lost or forfeited every single minute. The trucks sit idle at the border with Mexico. They are literally frozen in place because they are bottlenecked because of archaic, antiquated infrastructure and lack of appropriate staffing at the border. Infrastructure on the border also plays another important role, preventing things such as illicit drugs and merchandise from entering the country. In many respects, as I said, our border crossings, the technology employed there, and the professionals who work there--they are the first line of defense against bad actors who want to get into the country illegally or get contraband goods through our ports. In Texas, better roads and bridges at the border region mean better economic opportunity and quality of life for our growing border communities. Fortunately, the border infrastructure provision in this highway bill would give the Governor in Texas and all other border States the freedom to assess the biggest transportation problems facing those States and would also provide essential tools to address them. By dedicating funds to invest in border infrastructure projects at the discretion of State Governors, we can make sure our States have the resources they need to enhance trade and travel and to keep us safe at the same time. This is not, of course, a new notion. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have worked with folks in Texas and elsewhere, people on both sides of the aisle and on both ends of the Capitol, to try to find ways to facilitate greater levels of legitimate commerce and travel at our Nation's ports of entry and throughout the border region. I am thankful for making this progress in this legislation. I commend my Texas colleagues--Congressmen Will Hurd and Henry Cuellar, among others--for working with us and for introducing similar legislation on border infrastructure in their Chamber. Hopefully, as we now move from a Senate bill to a House bill that can then be reconciled in a conference committee, these important improvements will be retained and be part of a conference report. The bottom line is that quality infrastructure and making sure our border is safe and effective is a bipartisan, bicameral issue, and one that clearly unites people in my State and across the border region of our southern States. I am thankful to see this provision included, and I hope it gets passed soon to give our States the opportunity to dedicate even more necessary resources to the border. This provision is an important example of the overall theme of this bill, giving the States a reliable way forward to plan for their long- term infrastructure needs. More than anything else, I believe this legislation is an investment in our future and the next generation. I thank all of our colleagues for working with us to get this bill moving forward. We have an important vote tomorrow morning, and then we have another final passage vote, I believe, on Thursday. In the meantime, the House is going to send us a 3-month bill, which will give us the necessary time for the House then to consider their own transportation bill and then to get us to a conference where we can reconcile the differences. As the Presiding Officer and I have discussed before in the past, if that is any indication, that will give us even greater ability to influence the ultimate outcome in a way that improves this product in a bicameral and bipartisan sort of way. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have listened to the comments of my colleague, the junior Senator of Texas, both last week and this week, and I would have to say he is mistaken. First of all, if, in fact, the majority leader had somehow misrepresented to the 54 Senators what the facts are with regard to the Ex-Im Bank, I suspect we would find other voices joining that of the junior Senator, but I hear no one else making such a similar accusation. Secondly, I would just say to my colleague that there is an alternative explanation. There is an alternative explanation. As the majority leader has said time and time again, anytime 65 Senators want to do something here in the Senate, sooner or later they are going to get their way. Indeed, that represents the vote in support of the Ex-Im Bank--something I will end up voting against but where I realize that majorities will carry the day eventually. But if the rule the junior Senator from Texas is arguing for is embraced, we will lose all control of the Senate schedule; there will be chaos; and, indeed, we won't be able to meet simple deadlines, such as the one that exists on the 31st of this month with regard to the expiration of the transportation fund, because even after we close off debate, any Senator who wants to get a vote on an amendment will be entitled to do so. And that cannot be the rule. It is not the rule. It has never been the rule. And that is why what the junior Senator is attempting to do is so extraordinary. I will be opposing that, and I hope all of our colleagues will join us in opposing that because ultimately what that would mean is that a determined 51 Senators who want to raise taxes, who want to pass Obamacare 2.0, who want to pass a cap-and-trade bill or a carbon tax, who want to pass Dodd-Frank 2.0, or any additional government spending--they will be able to do it. They will be guaranteed an opportunity to get an amendment and be able to vote on that amendment, and it will pass in the Senate. I don't think that is in the best interests of the Senate. I don't think it is in the best interests of the 27 million people whom the junior Senator and I represent together. I certainly don't believe that is in the best interests of this institution which we all revere. If all 100 Senators have the opportunity to offer an amendment without restraint, then there will never be any deadline. There will never be any conclusion, and we would not be able to do the simple work that we have been asked to do on behalf of the American people. The final point is this. I know the junior Senator feels passionately about this amendment. But the fact of the matter is that we have a process that has been set up to review the Iran deal that President Obama and Secretary Kerry negotiated. We are going to have a chance to examine it, debate it, and review it over the next 2 months, and then we will have a chance to vote on it. There is a time and place for this vote. I will no doubt support the same position that the junior Senator is supporting. It is not on this bill. It is not now. It is not at the expense of breaking the orderly procedures that make sure that everyone gets a chance to participate. I would just say in conclusion that there was no misrepresentation made by the majority leader on the Ex-Im Bank. The only thing the majority leader promised was an opportunity to offer an amendment on a bill, recognizing that if he denied that opportunity, when 65 Senators wanted it--not just one Senator who we know can stop things around here, slow them down--the 65 Senators would be bound and determined to use any available leverage until they got that vote. So I agree with what the majority leader has decided to do and how he has decided to handle it. I know there are passionate views around here, but that does not justify changing the rules of the Senate through such extraordinary means. So I hope our colleagues join me to ratify the ruling of the Chair when that time comes rather than to overrule it. To overrule the Chair on something this important to the orderly consideration of the Senate's business would be a terrible mistake. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today the Senate has begun work on legislation that would provide our States and communities across this great land the resources and reliability they need to soundly invest in our transportation infrastructure. After a full stumble start when our friends across the aisle decided to block our ability to proceed, they reconsidered, thankfully, and I am glad to see them join us to move forward on this sensible, bipartisan bill. To this Senator, the most important part of the bill is that it doesn't kick the can down the road--at least not in the way we have done more than 30 different times. We have had more than 30 short-term transportation patches, which is a terrible way to do business, and frankly it should be embarrassing to us that we haven't been able to come up with a better solution. While a 3-year transportation bill is no panacea, it represents progress and avoids a lot of the unpredictability and wait-and-see problems our States have had when it comes to planning longer term projects. Fortunately, this multiyear bill restores some sanity by providing resources over a consistent and dependable period of time. It is actually a 6-year bill. We have come up with a bipartisan group of pay-fors to take us 3 years out, but then hopefully we will continue to work on trying to find a way to pay for the last 3 years without adding to the deficit and debt, as has happened in the past. This bill is really forward-looking, and this legislation provides the foundation for more commerce, more efficient travel, and more public safety by enhancing our transportation networks. In doing so, it provides for a more stable economic climate for the next generation, as our States plan to meet the needs of a continually growing population. I am thankful in Texas that with strong economic growth and a lot of people moving there--voting with their feet, as I like to say--from other parts of the country, we know the value of good infrastructure. And when the highway fights in Washington, DC, froze to a standstill, Texas stepped up to the plate and refused to wait. One example of that action that I mentioned earlier this week came last fall when Texans voted last November to overwhelmingly approve a measure that would provide an additional $1.7 billion to upgrade and maintain our vast transportation infrastructure. This came from a surplus in our rainy day fund. That proposal was approved with more than 80 percent of the vote, and in so doing, Texans clearly prioritized improved infrastructure and understood that by making our roads more efficient, we can decrease the 44 hours of car time that Texans spend stuck in traffic annually. The vote also showed that Texans realized that our State is poised to grow significantly. In fact, our economy, which grew 5.2 percent last year compared to 2.2 percent nationwide--one reason our economy is growing is because people are coming to Texas to pursue their dreams. We are going to need better roadways to absorb the estimated 18 million vehicles expected to be added to our roads by the year 2040. This bill will help Texas manage the influx of people and vehicles so that we will have the transportation infrastructure to support the millions of new people who will call Texas home in the not too distant future. Texas has long known that good transportation infrastructure is part of what has made us the economic powerhouse we are today. Take, for example, the farm-to-market roads that opened more than 70 years ago, with the idea that our farmers and ranchers needed a reliable transportation network to get their livestock and crops to town. So basically our farm-to-market roads gave our rural areas more access to the towns and cities that purchased those goods. This helped Texas agriculture--a substantial part of our economy--and made it even more competitive by providing a reliable method to transport our grown and raised goods to market--first around the local community, then around the State, and now around the country. Of course, I was pleased, along with a lot of folks in the agriculture sector in Texas, that we passed trade promotion authority with the promise of opening up even more markets around the world. Many generations have benefited from the investments we made in infrastructure to help them get efficiently from point A to point B. Just as the farm-to-market roads provided a more reliable transportation network throughout rural Texas, this legislation includes vital resources that will upgrade rural routes and freight corridors in addition to improving the overall safety and efficiency of nearly 20,000 miles of major roadways in Texas. While it is not perfect, as the Presiding Officer knows, this bill represents some progress. I wish I could say we have solved our transportation problems in perpetuity, but I don't think that is possible. But doing it for 3 years beats the dickens out of another short-term patch, as I mentioned a moment ago, and kicking this can down the road does nothing to support the next chapter of population and economic growth. As we continue to discuss and review this legislation, I am going to continue to encourage our colleagues to consider just how much our entire country needs to strengthen the infrastructure projects that will hopefully help that 2.2 percent growth which we experienced in 2014 nationwide go upward and upward because that will create more jobs and more opportunity. We have also seen that under new leadership, starting this last January, we have been able to make incremental progress in a number of areas on a bipartisan basis. Frankly, given the response I heard from many of my constituents last year when they complained to me about the dysfunction here in Washington, DC--even though, again, they are not necessarily saying we have met the mark, they are seeing that we are trying to work hard on a bipartisan basis to meet their needs, and I think this bill represents that kind of progress. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.