John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as the Presiding Officer knows, we are working on a bill we call WRDA, W-R-D-A, which is the Water Resources Development Act. This is important to the entire country because what it focuses on is obviously clean drinking water but also the kinds of infrastructure that protect public safety and make commerce and transportation possible. I commend the leadership of Chairman Inhofe, the Senator from Oklahoma, and Ranking Member Boxer, the Senator from California, for the work they have done getting us this far. In particular, I wanted to mention the application of this legislation to my home State of Texas. Texas understands that water is a precious resource and one that needs to be managed effectively. There is an old saying in Texas that whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting. It kind of makes you chuckle, but it demonstrates the point that water is essential to life. It is essential to our agricultural community to be able to grow our crops and water our livestock. It is indispensable, but it is easy to overlook all the work it takes to craft good legislation that looks out for the whole country's water supply and also protects our ports, our waterways, and helps guard against flooding. These are just a few of the projects included in this bill. In April, this legislation overwhelmingly passed out of committee. I am pleased this bill serves as just another example of what we can accomplish when we put politics aside and work together in the best interests of the American people. I wish to mention that I am also grateful this legislation includes part of a bill that I introduced last spring called the COAST Act. Texas has hundreds of miles of coastline, and the State's location in the Gulf of Mexico makes it particularly vulnerable to hurricanes, storms, and other weather impacts such as flooding, storm surges, and high winds. I don't need to tell the Presiding Officer about that, as Louisiana recently suffered terrible flooding. In 2008, Texans saw firsthand when Hurricane Ike made landfall. It became the second most costly U.S. hurricane on record. Of course, because the area is so densely populated and includes one of our Nation's busiest ports and energy hubs, major damage along the Texas coast would likely be felt well beyond our State in much of the rest of the country as well, particularly the economic impacts. Safeguarding the gulf coast from the next major hurricane should be a priority not just to Texas but a national priority, as I say, both to those who live there and those who would suffer the potential economic consequences. That is why this particular provision, the coastal Texas protection provision in the Water Resources Development Act legislation, is so important. This is very straightforward. All it would do is require the Army Corps of Engineers to take advantage of preexisting studies and not have to duplicate those studies as a prerequisite to addressing this issue. The Corps wouldn't have to duplicate efforts but could instead build on the good work of leaders in the State that had already been done, so the Texas coast can get the protection it needs sooner rather than later. Fortunately, the Water Resources Development Act also includes projects that will benefit communities across my State, such as infrastructure improvements to help reduce flooding, provisions that make our ship channels more efficient and strengthen our ports by making them safer and better equipped to handle growing amounts of trade. I know there is a lot of discussion about trade, particularly in the Presidential election season, but I will tell you that trade is viewed as an unmitigated good in my State. We are the No. 1 exporting State in the Nation, and that is just one reason why our economy is growing faster than the national economy. We have learned a very simple lesson; that is, when you grow things-- when you make things--and you have more people and more markets to sell to around the world, it is good for jobs, and it is good for the economy. I hope that some of our leaders and those who aspire to become the next President of the United States learn from some of the lessons that we have learned from in Texas--that trade is good. That is not to say that with globalization there aren't some people disadvantaged, and we can address some of those concerns with funds dedicated to retraining efforts. But the fact of the matter is that more technology and more globalization are changing our economy and our labor markets in ways that we will never be able to reverse. So we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water and just turn our backs on the benefits of trade, which means we need to have efficient ports that are equipped to handle growing amounts of trade globally. In conclusion, on the Water Resources Development Act, let me say again that I express my gratitude to Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Boxer for this solid, bipartisan legislation. I hope it passes the Senate soon. I trust it will be out of the Senate by the middle of next week.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this weekend is the 15th anniversary of the terrible attacks on our country on September 11, 2001. It is impossible to forget the horrible events of that day and the pain, grief, and mourning that our country felt. I think it is one of those seminal events in my life--and I am sure I am not alone--that I will always remember what I was doing and where I was when those planes hit the World Trade Center. It reminds me of when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated when I was much younger. I remember where I was and what I was doing. I know communities across the country will spend time on this anniversary of 9/11 honoring the lives of the victims, their families, and the friends that they left behind, as well as the first responders and volunteers who put others before themselves in the wake of so much destruction. One way that Congress can honor the victims of that day and lend support to their families is by sending the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act to President Obama's desk for his signature. This bill would enable Americans and their family members to pursue justice against those who sponsor acts of terrorism on the U.S. homeland, such as that which occurred on September 11, 2001. A few months ago this legislation passed unanimously in the Senate. Again, there is not much legislation that passes this body unanimously, but this did. I believe unanimous passage of this bill sends an unmistakable message that we will combat terrorism with every tool we have. Just as importantly, we will make sure that simple justice is available to the victims of terrorist attacks on our soil by not erecting any unnecessary roadblocks to the pursuit of justice in the courts of law. I understand that the House of Representatives will vote on this legislation, perhaps as soon as today or tomorrow, and I hope they send a similar message to the victims and their families on this 15th anniversary of 9/11. Finally, I hope the President will rethink his previous statements expressing an intent to perhaps veto this legislation. It makes absolutely no sense to prevent the families who suffered losses as a result of terrorist attacks on our soils from having their day in court against whoever is responsible. This legislation does not purport to decide who is responsible but merely removes the impediments under the sovereign immunity act that prevent them from even presenting their case in court. It is time we help victims of terrorism in our country to seek justice, and it is time that the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act becomes the law of the land. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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, reserving the right to object, let me start by saying to my friend from Oregon that I admire his passion and I admire his creativity at branding legislation. But for reasons I will explain, this is a commonsense procedure that doesn't relate to the Fourth Amendment--the constitutional right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. This is a venue provision. This has to do with what court to go to in order to get a court order and to get permission of a court, after establishing probable cause, to conduct that search. Senator Wyden is seeking consent to block proposed changes in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that have already been the product of thoughtful and lengthy consideration, including public hearing and deliberation. These rules, as all rules that are plied in the courts are, have been approved by the rules advisory committee. This is a group of judges, law professors, and practicing attorneys. Then they were approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Then, most significantly perhaps, they were endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court. So if there were constitutional or other legal issues and concerns about this, one would think the highest Court in the land would have flagged those and declined to endorse them, but they didn't. These changes have been approved because they are commonsense measures, as I said a moment ago, that relate solely to the appropriate venue for a search warrant. They simply make clear which Federal district court the government should go to in order to apply to a judge for a search warrant in cases involving sophisticated cyber criminals and people like child pornographers and even terrorists. Ultimately, that makes our government more efficient--by making it clear which courts can consider these requests for search warrants--and better equipped to stop these heinous crimes. As I said earlier, these aren't substantive changes. This doesn't change the balance between privacy and security in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Rather, the government must still go before a judge and make the requisite showing in order to get a search warrant. I can't understand who but the most radical of privacy advocates would say that--even after meeting the requirements of the Fourth Amendment before a judge establishing probable cause to get a search warrant, would say: No, we don't want that to happen. I can't imagine circumstances where we would say the Fourth Amendment is trumped by concerns about privacy, especially when the targets that must be proven up in court are cyber criminals, child pornographers, and even terrorists. We can't let that happen, and that is why these rule changes are so important. Our colleague claims the rule changes will allow for mass hacking and forum shopping. That is the creative branding I told him I admired in the beginning. But these are the same claims that have been considered and rejected through a thoughtful, thorough process that I have already described. These changes are modernizing our laws and updating the tools government has to investigate so they can better protect us from the very real and increasing threat of cyber criminals and terrorists. The truth is, there are more things we need to do in addition to this to update and modernize our laws. I would close by saying that I know public concerns have been raised. Indeed, I believe there have been some briefings--even today--by Federal law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community with regard to Russian activities in cyber space, even focused on our very system of electing our officials in the November 8 election. This is not a time to retreat and to allow cyber space to be run amuck by cyber criminals or people who would steal intellectual property or child pornographers or terrorists. This is a very sensible tool of venue. It just says where the search warrant can be sought, not the substantive requirements for what needs to be proven. That is preserved under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution that protects all of us, as it should, against unreasonable searches and seizures. So for all those reasons, Mr. President, I object to the unanimous consent request.

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 be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

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, this summer the American people have heard a lot about Secretary Clinton and how she went to great lengths to set up a private email server in violation of Federal law and accepted protocols not only at the State Department but in the U.S. Government. In early July FBI Director Comey announced findings from the Bureau's investigation into her server that confirmed what many people knew all along; that is, that Secretary Clinton simply misled the American people about it from day one. She didn't tell the truth, and she tried to cover it up. Contrary to her previous statements from her and her staff, Secretary Clinton did send and receive classified information on her private email server, including some at the very highest levels of classification. We learned that, contrary to her representations, her server did not provide adequate security, leaving sensitive information vulnerable to our Nation's enemies. We also learned that neither she nor her lawyers really actually reviewed the emails to determine whether they were work-related and needed to be turned over to the State Department and the Federal courts under our freedom of information laws. And we learned that she didn't give the authorities full access to all of her work-related emails. In fact, Director Comey said the FBI discovered thousands of emails that she simply had not produced even though she was required to do so. All of this may seem like old news, but the fact is, it is simply unacceptable. I am glad the FBI released much of its investigation on Friday, but, as was observed by a number of people, this was sort of a typical Washington news dump--get it out on Friday and hope that by Monday morning, people have moved on to other things or forgotten about it. But these regular scandals that seem to be associated with the Clintons--while they addressed the emails, they obviously evidenced contempt for our freedom of information laws and the kind of transparency that President Obama touted when he became President and spoke about on the day of his inauguration on January 20, 2009--most of the American people have come to believe they simply can't trust Secretary Clinton. According to a recent CNN poll, about 70 percent said that she isn't honest and trustworthy--almost 70 percent, which is an astoundingly high number. But I really can't blame folks. In fact, Secretary Clinton has no one else to blame but herself. Unfortunately, Director Comey's announcement back in the July wasn't the end of the story, though, because last month even more emails came to light that revealed the line blurred between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department under Secretary Clinton. Many of the new emails were between top Clinton aides and an executive at the Clinton Foundation requesting favors of Secretary Clinton in her official capacity. There is a lot of information out there, but I have just highlighted about three of the items here. One exchange requests a meeting between Secretary Clinton and the Crown Prince of Bahrain. According to the emails, after the Clinton Foundation staffer intervened, a meeting was quickly put together. The Washington Post has noted that the Crown Prince spent upwards of $32 million on an education program connected with--you guessed it--the Clinton Foundation. Another is from a person whom we will identify as just a sports executive trying to get an expedited visa for a British soccer player. He donated between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. Several other requests were for last-minute meetings and other favors, including one business executive who apparently got quick access to Secretary Clinton. He donated between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. So what do all of these examples have in common? Obviously they are asking for help through Secretary Clinton's direct line at the State Department and they gave millions of dollars to the foundation. These obviously were big-time donors. Let me add that I don't know a lot about the details involving these donations because the Clinton Foundation doesn't provide the date and exact amount but just ranges. Here is the point: Secretary Clinton and her team were quick to prioritize these big donors and respond to them quickly and even, if possible, follow through with whatever request was made of them. It is clear that major Clinton Foundation donors enjoyed great access to Secretary Clinton while she was serving as our Nation's premier diplomat. The Clinton Foundation interfered with official day-to-day work at the State Department when the Secretary and her staff should have been focused on keeping Americans safe and making sound foreign policy. One of the reasons I bring this up today is that this was an original concern of mine before Secretary Clinton was even confirmed as Secretary of State. After President Obama's election in 2009, during the Senate confirmation process, I objected to fast-tracking a vote on her nomination because I saw the real and myriad possibilities for conflicts of interest in the relationship between Secretary Clinton as Secretary of State and the Clinton family foundation. I told then- Secretary Nominee Clinton that we needed greater transparency and we needed more assurances as to the integrity of this whole arrangement. When I questioned her about it, I was assured by Secretary Clinton herself that the Clinton Foundation would take steps necessary to mitigate my concerns about conflicts of interest and perceived conflicts of interest. I would note that this was not just my concern; it was a concern raised by the then-chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Richard Lugar. It was also raised by President Obama and his White House itself. And what was produced out of those concerns was a very lawyerly-like memorandum of understanding between the Clinton Foundation and the Obama administration. In fact, I believe this is a precondition to Secretary Clinton getting the nomination from President Obama, because he didn't want the conflicts of interest that he knew could arise as a result of the foundation's activities to impugn the integrity of the Obama administration. This memorandum of understanding assured the President and the American people that the foundation would follow certain transparency measures to make sure that Secretary Clinton conducted American diplomacy with the utmost integrity. In doing so, the foundation agreed it would make public the names of all donors, including new ones. What was the result? In the ensuing years, Secretary Clinton and her family foundation made a habit of regularly crossing the lines that were drawn in that memorandum of understanding and with her verbal arrangements and understanding with me. Even though the foundation agreed to disclose all foreign donations--this is from foreign countries to a family foundation run, in part, by the Secretary of State of the U.S. Government. So even though they agreed to disclose all foreign contributions, they didn't, and even though some foreign donations were supposed to be submitted for review to the State Department, they weren't. According to reports, at least one organization within the foundation failed to annually disclose its list of donors, and today the American people still lack basic information about many of the donations, like the exact amounts that were donated to the foundation, as I already mentioned. I don't know anybody who feels comfortable with or who can defend these obvious conflicts of interest between the Secretary of State representing the United States and her family foundation soliciting and receiving multimillion-dollar donations from heads of state of foreign countries, not to mention other people who obviously were trying to get the help of Secretary Clinton in some official capacity. Secretary Clinton was performing her job as Secretary of State, and at the same time, the Clinton Foundation was shaking down donors who at least thought they were buying access. I don't know how to describe that in any other terms other than it is deplorable and it completely undercuts the integrity of our democratic process. This isn't funny, as former President Clinton suggested. Lying to the American people doesn't make you some kind of Robin Hood either, as he claimed to be. He said the only difference between him and Robin Hood is he didn't steal from anybody. Well, this whole scandal further underscores the Clinton philosophy that anything goes. She clearly feels like the laws that apply to you and me don't apply to her, and it is no wonder the American people have come to distrust her and believe that she is simply incapable in many instances of telling the truth. I hope the American people keep asking questions of Secretary Clinton and her foundation, and I hope soon that we all get some answers. The American people deserve complete unobstructed transparency into this matter, and it is clear they won't get that from Secretary Clinton herself. Regarding the vote to confirm Secretary Clinton, it did occur. In reliance upon her assurances of transparency and to maintain the independence of her office of Secretary of State from the activities of the foundation, I, among many others of my colleagues, voted to confirm Secretary Clinton as Secretary of State, but my belief today is that she simply did not keep up her end of the bargain. Thus, if that vote were held today, I could not and would not vote to confirm her as Secretary of State.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thought I had gotten to the point where I wasn't surprised at some of the rhetoric we hear from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, particularly the Democratic leader when he claims that we haven't gotten anything done in the U.S. Congress since Republicans have been in the majority. I guess to the extent that he says that and there is nobody who corrects it, then people might actually believe it. I just want to point out from the beginning some of the important work we have been able to do on a bipartisan basis. I see our friend the Senator from Tennessee here. He has been the point man for so many of these pieces of legislation, such as the education reform bill, among others that I will mention, but the fact is that since Republicans have been in the majority after the election in 2014, more than 140 pieces of legislation have been signed into law, and 240-plus bills have passed the Senate alone. We have also had, by and large, an open amendment process where any Senator who thinks they have a better idea on a bill can come to the floor and offer an amendment and get a vote on it. So compare the 240 amendment votes in this Congress to the 15 when Senator Reid was majority leader in the 113th Congress. People need to know that his representation isn't borne out by the facts. It is not even close. I was reminded of the quote from Abraham Lincoln. He defined a hypocrite as a man who murdered his parents and then pleaded for mercy because he was an orphan. It is true that we find ourselves in the current messy posture primarily because of the obstruction of our Democratic colleagues on the other side. We were hoping that we would get back to what we internally call regular order, which is a more transparent process where each of the 12 appropriations bills can be passed out of the Appropriations Committee, come across the floor, be amended and voted on, then matched up with what our friends and colleagues in the House do, and then sent on to the President for his signature. Instead of that normally functioning Congress, there are the filibusters of our Democratic colleagues led by the Democratic leader who is claiming that the Congress has become dysfunctional all of a sudden. It is because of their actions. They are the ones that have blocked the appropriations process. This is why we find ourselves in the remaining few weeks of September trying to figure out how we pay the bills, how we keep the government up and running. I have a list of legislation that makes up that 240 bills and 140 laws written that were signed into law. I will not waste the Senate's time by reciting those, but I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks it be printed in the Record. Mr. President, we find ourselves voting again on a $1.1 billion appropriation to combat the Zika virus. There has been a lot of discussion about the Zika virus. As we have come to learn, this is a virus carried by a certain species of mosquito and because of summer weather and because the Zika virus seems to be coming our way from Central and South America, we figured it was important for us to do something about it. On the high-tech end, our scientists need to come up with a vaccine to make sure that pregnant women don't have to worry about birth defects in their unborn children, typified by this chart that demonstrates a condition known as microcephaly, where literally the head is shrunken along with the brain. One can imagine the prognosis for this child to be very poor, and nothing but heartache is in store for this child's family. This is what our Democratic colleagues are risking by continuing to filibuster the spending that we have provided for in this appropriations bill--$1.1 billion. It is also important to do what sometimes is referred to as the low- tech part of this as well. Recently I was in Houston, TX, with some of my friends from the Harris County Public Health district. They were demonstrating to me how they trapped mosquitoes. The Culex mosquito can spread other types of virus, but the Aedes aegypti mosquito carries the Zika virus. There is fantastic work being done at the local level by our public health districts to monitor the mosquito population and then test it to see whether they can detect the presence of the Zika virus. When they do, that of course directs the spraying effort by the public health district. One of the most important things to do is control the mosquito population. It cannot be eliminated entirely, and spraying without any particular target is a waste of time and money. But it can be targeted, and that is what is happening in places like Houston, TX, and in the Harris County Public Health district. I spent an afternoon with public health officials at what is called the mosquito and vector control unit. Of course, Houston is a big place. Harris County, where Houston is located, is the third largest county in the country by population, and it covers 1,777 square miles. It is bigger than the State of Rhode Island. The reason I mention that is to just consider the idea of going out to spray 1,777 square miles. That doesn't make any sense. That is why the work being done by the mosquito and vector control unit is so important--to actually target the spraying where it is needed most. The most important thing we can do as citizens is to educate ourselves and to prevent ourselves from being bitten by the mosquito in the first place. Some of that has to do with the clothing we wear and also wearing insect repellent, particularly for pregnant women. The danger of this particular birth defect is real, and it is important that women of childbearing age take care to protect themselves. Part of the reason I visited with the public health officials in Houston was to not only educate myself but to help raise public awareness of what we can do as individual citizens to protect ourselves. I met with one of the surveillance entomologists; it is quite a title. A surveillance entomologist with the mosquito and vector control unit is a fellow I met who has a wonderful name. His name is Max Vigilant--what a great name for a surveillance entomologist in Harris County, TX. He gave me a glimpse of what he and his colleagues are doing every day to safeguard their communities, but they cannot do this alone. That is why this funding that has been blocked on numerous occasions by our Democratic colleagues over ridiculous objections makes no sense whatsoever. I happened to see that the senior Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, sent out a tweet this afternoon urging Senate Republicans to pass Zika funding, to which I responded: Well, you blocked it, Chuck--which is true. And they continue to block it. It has unfortunately fallen to local leaders such as County Judge Ed Emmett in Harris County and people like Max Vigilant to take care of this pending crisis because frankly the dysfunction that is occurring in Congress is led by the Democratic leader. So I think it is important to set the record straight. I am grateful we have leaders at the local and State level who step up when the Federal Government seems incapable of doing so. But now it is time for the Federal Government to step up. Why our Democratic colleagues would risk this horrific birth defect for political reasons is just lost on me. It makes no sense whatsoever. I might add that not only is it spread by mosquitoes, there is now some demonstrated cases or proven cases of sexual transmission of the Zika virus. As we know, our friends in Florida in particular have had domestically transmitted cases of Zika virus and are working hard to combat the mosquito there and to contain the virus and to prevent this sort of terrible result, but for the health of our country and for the protection of all our children, let's get this compromise legislation done. No one should doubt the gravity of the threat or the long-term health consequences of failing to get our work done. So I hope our Democratic colleagues put their words into action and vote to send additional resources to those communities across the country that are already working hard to defeat the Zika virus. I will conclude by saying, I implore our Democratic colleagues, including the senior Senator from Nevada, the Democratic leader, to quit saying things that are demonstrably not true. We have worked hard, many times over the Democratic leader's objection. I can think of two of them that stand out in my mind: for trade promotion authority and for a long-term highway bill, where he did not support it and he actively tried to block it. So we had to find other Democrats and work with the White House to get it done. We have been able to pass a number of important bills but very little with his help because, for some reason, he seems intent on trying to cause this Congress to be as dysfunctional as it was when he was the leader, but it is not going to happen. We are working with people of good faith on both sides of the aisle and, when we can, with the White House, to do the important work of the American people. So with that, 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. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I share the regret of my colleague from Wisconsin that our friends across the aisle--the dysfunction that characterized the last Congress, when they were in charge, is unfortunately creeping into this Congress as well, in spite of roughly a year and a half of relatively good productivity by the Congress on a bipartisan basis. To come in and make objections against commonsense ways to protect whistleblowers determined to try to make sure we keep our commitments to our veterans is just--well, it is shameful, and I share the disappointment of my colleagues. Moments ago, our Democratic colleagues failed another test, a test of whether they care more about American families or about special interest groups. This is what I am talking about. The test our Democratic colleagues failed is one to see whether they care more about averting these sort of devastating birth defects caused by the Zika virus or whether they care more about the special interest groups that raise money off of legislation designed to solve problems and prevent public health disasters like this. Unfortunately, they made the wrong choice. They failed the test. This is what the Zika virus can do. This is an example of microcephaly or, basically, shrunken skull. We can imagine what this does to the baby's brain, what this means in terms of trying to provide medical care by a loving mother and father, trying to make sure this baby, no matter how long it may live, has at least as comfortable a life as it can have until it passes away. Of course, the prognosis--the life expectancy of a baby with microcephaly is not good, and that is an understatement. We know Zika is a preventable disease. We know, with mosquito eradication, we know with proper precautions people can take--not leaving standing water in places where mosquitoes can propagate--if we do our job by providing the adequate funding needed to avert this public health crisis, someday--and, hopefully, not too long, not too far away--we can actually develop a vaccine so pregnant women and women of child-bearing age don't have to worry or live in fear that this might happen to their baby. Just yesterday, the Harris County Public Health Office in Houston--as the Presiding Officer knows--confirmed that the first baby in Texas was born with Zika-related microcephaly. This tragedy depicted by this photograph is real and it is at our doorstep. This particular case involves a pregnant woman who had traveled to South America, where we know Zika virus is present, but all of our public health officials are telling us it is slowly working its way up from Central and South America and it is literally at our doorstep. This is not a time to refuse to do our duty and simply coast through the rest of the summer. We are talking about lifelong irreversible problems that take lives and affect families for years to come. Experts across the country that I have visited with, in Galveston at the National Lab, at the Texas Medical Center in Houston, say we need to act, and we need to act now. They are not alone. It was just last May when our Democratic colleagues asked us to act and to act with urgency, but today they turned down the very money they argued for last May, when they decided to gamble with the lives of children like this instead of protecting them. As I said, they ignored their own calls to get this done quickly, and they have refused to pass urgent measures that would protect our country from a public health crisis. As I said when I started, this was a test today to see whether our Democratic colleagues cared more about babies like this or special interest groups, and they failed the test. It is as simple as that. I want to make sure everyone understands how we got here. Two months ago, a bipartisan agreement was introduced to handle the Zika threat. That was 2 months ago. Senator Blunt of Missouri and Senator Murray of Washington worked together, as we are supposed to do, to come up with a bipartisan compromise, in this case, to an appropriations bill. About a week after it was introduced in this Chamber, it passed overwhelmingly. Not one Democrat opposed the $1.1 billion appropriations amendment that was attached to the VA-Military Construction appropriations bill. Not one Democrat opposed it because, until recently, they seemed to agree with us that this is a major public health crisis in the making--particularly, as I said, because we expect the mosquito-borne virus to hit the mainland in places like Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and other warm parts of the country. We expect it to hit the U.S. mainland in full force as temperatures continue to rise this summer. The legislation we passed in the Senate was reconciled, as it is supposed to be, in a conference committee with different legislation passed by the House. That bicameral, bipartisan compromise is what we considered earlier today--after Senate Democrats decided to block it for the first time a few weeks ago. It seems that after they called upon us to pass the bill in May, they have decided in the interim it is not as urgent as they once said. For months now, Senate Democrats have talked about the need to get this legislation passed to prepare us for the Zika virus, and it was the Democratic leader who said this on May 23, 2016--May 23. It is now July 14. He said: Instead of gambling with the health and safety of millions of Americans, Republicans should give our nation the money it needs to fight Zika, and they should do it now. Not next month, not in the fall--now. This is the Democratic leader. When we delivered on his request that he made on May 23, he voted no--even though he and every Senate Democrat voted yes to pass the Senate bill at exactly the same level that this conference report provided. Then, in an amazing reversal, Senator Murray of Washington--who, as I said a moment ago, quite responsibly worked with Senator Blunt from Missouri to come up with the original amendment funding this Zika prevention effort at $1.1 billion--she then in effect voted against her own amendment. Back in May, she was singing a different tune. She said: Families and communities are expecting us to act. Parents are wondering if their babies will be born safe and healthy. In Congress, we should do everything we can to tackle this virus without any further delay. That was on May 26, 2016. But today, again, this same Senator who said these words on May 26 voted no. We have to ask ourselves why. What do they consider is more important than stopping this? What could it possibly be? What could be more important, more demanding? What could be a higher priority for these Senate colleagues than voting to fund the research on prevention that would stop this from happening to one more baby in America? Unfortunately, the hypocrisy we have heard doesn't end there. On June 20, the senior Senator from New York, the next Democratic leader in waiting, said: ``Every day we wait, every day is increasing the risk that we will have problems with Zika.'' That is not exactly a profound statement, but it is a true statement. My point is that people are pretty disgusted with what they see here in Washington these days, where rather than trying to find consensus, people really find ways to say no and to block important legislation like this. This is the very definition of dysfunction. I have to tell you that I am beyond disappointed at the hypocrisy demonstrated by all of our Senate Democrats voting for the funding at the $1.1 billion level, only now for the second time to vote against this rescue appropriation to prevent this sort of thing from happening. It really is beyond frustrating. It is disgusting. If there is anything good, any good news in all of this, I would say that, fortunately, months ago the Obama administration finally agreed with Senate Republicans to set aside more than half a billion dollars of unspent funds for the Ebola crisis. There was roughly $589 million that was set aside and reprogrammed for that purpose, but that is no excuse for failing to act comprehensively as our Senate Democrats have urged us to do time and again. This is nothing to play around with. This is not a trivial matter. This is a life-altering, life-shortening, devastating birth defect that is preventable. What could be more important? It is our job to send this bill to the President's desk. As long as our Senate Democratic colleagues refuse to do so, as long as they refuse to defend the health and well-being of Americans across this country, as long as they refuse another chance to protect our children from devastating birth defects, there is not much we can do about it. There is something the American people can do about it, and they can call and they can write to their Senator. They can say: I don't care what your objection is; it better be pretty darned important if you are going to block funding that would prevent this from happening to my baby or to babies in my family or in my neighborhood. Health experts across our country need resources to study the virus, to contain the virus, to keep it from spreading, and, hopefully, eventually to develop a vaccine. For our Democratic colleagues to block this legislation again months after saying it was so urgent amounts to tying the hands of our doctors, our local public health officials, and researchers from city to city. Clearly, the responsibility rests with them. When we see locally transmitted cases of the Zika virus in the United States caused by mosquitoes carrying that virus, the responsibility will be with them for refusing to act in light of the clarion call by public health officials that this is a real public health emergency. To take this bill hostage is not only hypocritical; it is profoundly irresponsible. I don't know how some of our colleagues can sleep at night knowing that they are putting these babies and their families at risk. There is simply no excuse for blocking this critical funding. As I said, there is a test that was taken today, and our Democratic colleagues once again failed the test. Condemning the Attack in Dallas Mr. President, on a separate and equally somber note, today Senator Cruz and I submitted a simple resolution that would condemn the horrific attack in Dallas of last week that took the lives of five police officers and wounded several more. It is a small way but an important way that we can honor those whom we have lost, express sympathy to their families, and take a stand against violence and hatred targeting police officers. I hope this Chamber adopts this resolution without delay. 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, on another matter, earlier today this Chamber voted to move the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act conference report forward. This legislation has been the work of bipartisanship from the beginning, and it sailed through the Senate earlier this year. Now, this bicameral agreement authorizes even more resources to combat the epidemic of heroin and prescription painkiller abuse that is tearing families apart across the country. Over the last few years, we have heard the stories and we have seen a dangerous trend of heroin and prescription drug abuse. In my State alone, it is estimated that these deaths have increased by as much as 80 percent in recent years. There is no doubt this is a serious issue. This is not just a bipartisan issue; this is a nonpartisan issue. Now is our chance to get something done. I am grateful for the hard work and the leadership of the junior Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman, who has shepherded this bill from the beginning to where we are today, along with Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire, Senator Blunt from Missouri, and Chairman Grassley of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I want to thank all of them for their role in getting this bill across the finish line. Now we need to complete our work and pass it so we can get it to the President's desk. Zika Virus Funding Of course, there is a lot more we should be doing for the American people this week, but unfortunately, instead of advancing bills that would help prevent birth defects from the Zika virus and divert a public health crisis, our colleagues want to talk about climate change. I understand many of them feel this is a serious matter and a priority, but what they have been basically doing is beating up on a group of nonprofits and private citizens no one outside the beltway has even heard of, and for what? For having the temerity to exercise their rights under the Constitution, their rights to free speech and free expression. Heaven forbid someone should utter words that somebody across the aisle might disagree with. The answer, as we know, to speech you disagree with is more speech, not less speech. It should not be used to try to squash, intimidate, coerce the people you disagree with. That is not the America I know, and that is not what the Constitution provides for. I hope our colleagues will get their priorities straight. This is about preventing devastating birth defects in children infected with the Zika virus. We can have a discussion about climate change-- hopefully without the attempt to intimidate and attack people who express opinions our colleagues don't agree with--but I suggest that our priorities ought to be a little bit different. It is not just that this is a conscience effort to ignore the most pressing issues facing our country, such as fighting the Zika virus or funding our troops; they don't even want to have an honest conversation about the policies they are peddling because they are not interested in a debate, they want to stamp out contrary views. For all their fanfare about climate change, this is not the most urgent thing we need to do this week. They don't talk about how the policies are advocating what actually stifled free speech and hurt the American economy and cut jobs. We have had debates and votes in this body about some of these sweeping proposals to deal with the problem that may or may not actually come to pass. There have been other challenges we faced in this country that have been overcome due to the inventiveness, innovation, and genius of the American people in coming up with solutions. I hope our colleagues who have latched on to this as a way to divert attention from the imminent threat of the Zika virus and the need to fund our troops will come back into a zone--not a logic-free zone-- where we can talk about these issues. And instead of trying to score political points with outside groups who are happy to raise money off of this issue, we need to get back to reality and back to the work at hand. Quite frankly, it is hard to believe this is where we are, with our Democratic friends arguing against bills that would help prevent birth defects in our children and support our troops. Instead, they want to grandstand on climate change. I hope they get a reality check soon and stop quibbling over bicameral, bipartisan pieces of legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday I had the privilege of attending a memorial service for the brave Dallas police officers who lost their lives almost a week ago. It was a fitting tribute to these courageous men who fought evil and who made the ultimate sacrifice. Through such a sad and tumultuous time, the brave leadership of Mayor Mike Rawlings and Police Chief Brown has been a constant source of inspiration. A number of people have stopped me in the hallway and said: Have you seen or heard this police chief in Dallas? I said: Absolutely. Have you seen the sort of leadership and the calming influence Mayor Rawlings has provided in a time where people are confused, distraught, angry? It has been very impressive. They have gone above and beyond the call to bring as much comfort to the city as they possibly can. While they have shown the world what poise under pressure looks like, I want to say how proud I am of their dedication to the people of Dallas and their steady and unwavering hand. The events of last week serve as a terrible reminder that our law enforcement officers face multiple threats in their line of duty every day and that some twisted, deranged individuals will stop at nothing to target them. Mayor Rawlings was right yesterday when he said that the officers in Dallas did nothing wrong. He is absolutely right. They were just doing their job. Here is what I would like to hear a little bit more about from our leaders here in Washington and around the country: There is no justification--zero, zip, nada--no justification for violence against police officers. There is none. You can't justify what happened in Dallas with something that happened in Ferguson, in Baltimore, or some other place around the country. Chief Brown said that what we need to do is not paint with a broad brush the 99 percent of police officers who do what they should be doing in a brave and heroic sort of way because of the actions of the 1 percent or whatever the rogue individual might be. What he said we need to do is to hold the officers who do misbehave, who don't respect the communities they are serving, and who cross the line--we need to hold them accountable, and he is exactly right. What I hope we will hear more about, as the President talked about yesterday, is the importance of having this national discussion about race, about law enforcement. What I hope we hear more of is some clarity from our national leaders. Our police officers in Dallas were doing nothing more than keeping order and protecting civilians in peaceful protests. The supreme irony in Dallas is that the people protesting were part of Black Lives Matter. Who was protecting them? The very police officers targeted by this deranged shooter. Actually, as President Obama acknowledged yesterday, the Dallas Police Department is a national model for how to deescalate conflict in communities and work with communities to reduce crime. Again, it is another irony that this terrible tragedy occurred there against that department. In the aftermath of this great national tragedy, we do need to come together as a country and have some uncomfortable discussions, perhaps. We need to get beyond the talking points in our comfort zone. But the one thing we need to do absolutely is to come together to show our support for those who get up every morning, put on their badge, and walk out the door not knowing if they will come home at the end of the day. We can do that by sending a clear message that America will not tolerate those who seek to kill those who are duty-bound to defend us. We will not stand for it. This should go without saying. In the aftermath of the Dallas attack, we have another chance to stand up for law enforcement and stand united for policies that better support them. Today I am introducing legislation with our colleague from North Carolina, Senator Tillis, and our colleague from Texas, Senator Cruz, called the Back the Blue Act, which would do just that. Many folks have seen the hashtag ``Back the Blue'' on social media, online. It is a small way for Americans to show their solidarity with our law enforcement officials and their families following this tragedy, and that is where this legislation gets its name. The Back the Blue Act would create a new Federal crime for killing or attempting to kill a Federal judge, a law enforcement officer, or someone funded by Federal funds--a federally funded public safety officer. Under this bill, an offender would be subject to a range of penalties, from a minimum of a 30-year mandatory minimum sentence for murder ranging up to the death penalty. I think it is more important than ever for us to make this kind of clear and unequivocal statement about our support for law enforcement. This is the very glue that holds our country together, and without the safety and security they provide, none of our other freedoms are really possible. The Back the Blue Act would also create a new crime for assaulting a law enforcement official and create a new law prohibiting the fleeing to avoid punishment for assaulting a law enforcement official. As I said, there is no excuse, no justification--none whatsoever--for attacking a law enforcement officer. Most of us learned that from our parents while growing up, but apparently some people didn't learn that lesson, and we ought to make clear to those who did not get the memo, who did not learn that lesson, that assaulting a law enforcement officer is absolutely beyond the pale. We need to show that we value the lives of our law enforcement, and we need to make it absolutely clear that we will hold those who carry out crimes against them accountable. The Back the Blue Act would do that. The Back the Blue Act would also expedite court proceedings for cases that involve the death of a public safety officer. It would make sure criminals aren't rewarded for committing a crime by recovering money damages from injuries they sustained while committing a felony or violent crime. It would help strengthen our communities by allowing grant funding to be put toward efforts to foster more trust between police and those around them. This is something I am particularly proud of that has been happening in Dallas under Mayor Rawlings and Chief Brown. They make it absolutely clear that the responsibility of the law enforcement official is not to sit in their police car and wait for something to happen, to wait for someone to call; they believe in community policing, making sure law enforcement mixes and intermingles with the very people they are supposed to protect. Frequently, those same people can be the eyes and the ears that provide essential information to law enforcement so they can prevent criminal acts from occurring in the first place. The final thing I would mention that this legislation would do is it would allow law enforcement officers to carry firearms in Federal facilities. These are not expansive proposals; they are tailored measures that would better serve the men and women who serve our communities every day. If now is not the time to show our support for law enforcement, when is? With the attention of the Nation riveted on events like those that occurred in Dallas, I think it is critically important that we take advantage of this opportunity to make this statement of solidarity. Yesterday President Obama stressed the need to translate our words and prayers into action. This legislation is responsive to what the President said. It is one thing to offer people our best wishes and our thoughts and prayers; it is another thing to actually do something about it. This legislation does that. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation. We can do more for our police officers and their families, and we can start with the Back the Blue Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).