John Cornyn

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. 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. Madam President, last Thursday night, hundreds gathered in downtown Dallas to engage in a peaceful protest. Dozens of police officers were on hand to make sure that these protesters could exercise their rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and protesters even snapped pictures of themselves with the officers in a show of harmony, underscoring the peaceful nature of the event. As we know now, near the end of the route, all this was shattered as a gunman opened fire on law enforcement officers in a targeted, senseless, and vicious attack. It was made clear early on, that the attackers' goal was to kill as many police officers as possible, and he made a calculated effort to do just that. To attack those who work day in and day out to keep our communities safe is absolutely revolting. It is an act of pure evil and the shameful work of a coward. Today our country grieves with Dallas, the Dallas Police Department, who lost four of their own, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit, who lost an officer while protecting the community that night. These officers did what all of our law enforcement officers potentially would be called to do; that is, they put their lives on the line. Some gave their very lives, and several others were injured in actions that can only be described as heroic. These officers were certainly worthy of the badge they wore, and their courage makes me proud to be a Texan. They could have turned around and run away from the sound of gunshots and commotion. They could have given up and decided their lives were more important than the lives of those they had vowed to protect, but they didn't. That is not who they are. They are made of better, braver stuff than that. In fact, these officers ran to the sound of gunshots without hesitation to protect the community they serve. Dallas police chief David Brown recounted that many ran out in the middle of the gunfire knowing they were making themselves targets of the attack in order to get injured officers to safety and to medical help. Many used their own bodies to help shield protesters who were fleeing in terror. That is what the men and women of the Dallas police force are made of--undeniable valor and unfailing courage. To say we are indebted to them for their service to the community is an understatement, but I want to thank each and every one of them who didn't hesitate to put it all on the line to defend and protect the people of Dallas. Today and tomorrow, when the President comes to Dallas, our country will continue to mourn with the whole Dallas community. We grieve for the first named officer who was killed, Officer Brent Thompson. Officer Thompson was a newlywed who married a fellow officer just a couple of weeks ago. We grieve for the loss of Patrick Zamarripa, who bravely served three tours in Iraq and leaves behind a wife, a son, and a 2- year-old daughter. We likewise grieve for the family and friends of Lorne Ahrens, Michael Krol, and Michael Smith--three other officers who were killed. We offer our prayers for those who were wounded, including a woman who happened to be an African American who was shot in the leg while trying to shield her sons from the bullets. We pray for her and the several other police officers who were shot but survived as they begin the long road to recovery. I mentioned the race of the woman who was shot to underscore that while the shooter said he intended to kill White police officers, his actions did not discriminate based on race. Everyone who was in the line of his sight that night was a target. This is a national tragedy, the deadliest day for American law enforcement since the events of 9/11. Tomorrow I will join leaders in Dallas, President Obama, and former President Bush at the memorial service to honor the lives of those we lost and to pray for healing and peace for the city and for our country. While it should not take an event like this to jolt our consciences, we have to consider more ways to support our public servants who are tasked with the daunting responsibility of keeping order, enforcing the rule of law, and protecting our communities. One way we can do that is to support additional training for our law enforcement, like some legislation that I have introduced called the POLICE Act, which has passed the Senate unanimously. It would make millions of dollars available for law enforcement to pursue active-shooter training. In other words, we have learned the hard way that by trained policed officers running to the gunshot, we can actually save lives while endangering, obviously, the lives of the police officers engaging in that active-shooter practice. But with training, these officers can minimize their own exposure and, hopefully, save more lives. I hope the House will pass this legislation soon so we can send it to the President's desk. I also would note the contribution of my friend and colleague Congressman John Carter from Central Texas, who has sponsored legislation in the House. It is pretty clear that we don't have all of the answers. That goes without saying, but we know we can make a difference if we try. In addition, I plan on introducing other legislation soon that would help law enforcement go after the violent criminals who intentionally target police officers and give additional authorities to our law enforcement officers to help them better defend both the public and themselves. As we continue to grieve and say our prayers, let's not neglect our work to support law enforcement so that they can better protect and defend our communities. Our law enforcement officers deserve our utmost respect for the essential, irreplaceable role they play in our communities. Tragically, the officers we lost last week were killed and injured for simply doing their job; that is, for keeping the community safe. They were shot while actually protecting protesters so that they could exercise their constitutional rights of free speech and assembly. These officers didn't do anything wrong. They weren't responsible for any of the real or perceived injustices that have occurred in other parts of the country, but they were targeted by a twisted and demented mind who lost his own life in pursuit of this terrible crime. There is no-- zero--justification for the taking of these lives. As our country continues to grieve, I hope we will also unite to support those who put their lives on the line to keep us safe. Madam President, I see a Senator wishing to speak, so I will yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to begin by briefly commending the efforts of the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey, for his work and leadership in crafting legislation that the Senate considered yesterday that would protect families from the dangers of so-called sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities are, frankly, not particularly appropriately named because these are cities that have made a conscious decision to refuse to cooperate with the lawful orders of Federal authorities, especially when it comes to removal of criminal illegal aliens. The bottom line is that the failure to cooperate with Federal law and Federal officials is a danger to the very communities that many of our colleagues who blocked this legislation claim they want to protect. In other words, these so-called sanctuary city policies--they refuse to cooperate with the removal of people who demonstrate their untrustworthiness by committing crime after crime after crime. They are a threat to the entire community, including legal immigrants and native-born Americans. Senator Toomey's legislation would have cut Federal funding to these cities and counties that refused to follow the rule of law and would empower local authorities to crack down on those who commit crimes on our soil. Unfortunately, once again, our Democratic colleagues filibustered this commonsense proposal, in addition to another bill that would have helped protect our communities. It is beginning to appear they are making a habit out of blocking bills that this country needs. Let me give another example. Just last week, our Democratic colleagues were faced with a choice. They had made the point over and over again that the Zika virus--which is being carried by a mosquito native to our southern parts of the United States--was at our Nation's doorstep. They said that in order to combat this threat, we need additional funding for mosquito eradication, developing clinical trials for a vaccine, and advising and informing and educating the public on what to do to protect themselves. We know. We saw a picture on the Senate floor of the devastating impact this virus has on a woman who is pregnant and her child. Indeed, last week we had a picture of a child with microcephaly--the shrunken skull and brain--and a description of the tragic circumstances they will face in that child's short life. We could avoid all of that if our Senate colleagues would just quit playing politics. They really had a choice: to protect pregnant women and their babies from the devastating impact of a birth defect caused by the Zika virus or to play partisan politics. What did they choose? Well, it is pretty obvious they chose to play partisan politics. Every Senate Democrat voted for $1.1 billion in Zika funding. What did the joint conference committee in the House and Senate produce that they filibustered? Zika funding for $1.1 billion. In other words, they voted against the very amount of money that they had previously voted for. They need to quit gambling with the health of Americans. That is what Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, said when he urged us to fund the President's request for Zika funding. But then they abruptly did an about-face when presented with a bill at the same funding level that they themselves had previously voted on. So who is gambling now? Who is gambling now? Who is going to answer to the mother of a child born with a devastating birth defect and explain to them why they thought that politics was more important than actually coming up with prevention and coming up with a vaccine that actually would stop the threat of these dangerous and devastating birth defects? If the Democrats in the Senate want to gamble on the future health of the next generation, I want no part of it. Zika poses a real and immediate threat to our country, particularly in places like Texas where I come from. Ignoring the devastating impact of this virus is irresponsible and heartless. We will soon provide another opportunity for our Democratic colleagues to move forward with a bipartisan, bicameral funding bill that includes the needed resources to fight Zika here at home at the funding level that the Democrats in the Senate have previously supported. Our public health officials need to continue the good work they are doing to study the virus, contain it, and keep it from spreading here in the United States, and they need the financial resources to do it. It is just beyond comprehension why our Senate colleagues would continue to filibuster this important funding. Saying that the bill lacks sufficient funding to fight the virus is just plain ridiculous. That is what they have said. According to reports from just yesterday, administration officials estimate that they still have nearly half a billion dollars of unspent Ebola funds that could be put to use for combating Zika. So I would invite our Democratic colleagues to reconsider their previous decision to block this funding and consider the wide-ranging implications of their ``no'' vote from last week. I urge them to reconsider so we can get these funds into the hands of those who protect us and our children. TRUST Act On another matter, Mr. President, yesterday I spoke on FBI Director Comey's announcement regarding Secretary Clinton's use of her personal email server. He called her and the staff who enabled her to use this private server to transmit classified information ``extremely careless.'' He made clear that their actions were egregious in the sense that they put classified information at risk that our Nation's enemies would love to have and use against us. In summary, he said they should have known better, which is pretty self-evident, and he said they put our country at risk. Even more devastating, his announcement on Tuesday proved that Secretary Clinton had been lying to the American people about her server from day one. From Director Comey's investigation, it is clear now that she did send and receive classified information, some at the very highest levels of classification. It is clear now that her server didn't provide adequate security, leaving sensitive information vulnerable to our Nation's adversaries. It is evident now that she didn't give the authorities full access to all of her work-related emails. Director Comey said the FBI uncovered several thousand more that she hadn't turned over. In a word, this is unacceptable. For somebody with so much experience in government--as First Lady, as a U.S. Senator, and then as Secretary of State--to gamble with our Nation's most important secrets is completely irresponsible. Unfortunately, it tends to reinforce the narrative Secretary Clinton herself has been responsible for writing, and that narrative is, when it comes to her activities, anything goes. The rules may apply to you and me, but they certainly don't apply to her. Unfortunately, she feels like she is above the law, and, as I said, the rules that apply to others don't apply to her. This is simply unacceptable. As Director Comey noted, people who engage in what Secretary Clinton did--the mishandling of classified information--are often at least held accountable through some security or administrative sanction, and that is if they don't get fired or put in prison for their misconduct. We have to do what we can here to hold her and her staff accountable. It is part of the oath we take to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. No less than if we were an FBI agent or a Federal judge, as Senators we have to take that oath, and it is the right thing to do. It is very important that we send a firm message that this sort of behavior is unacceptable, and hopefully we will deter others from taking the same risks to our Nation's national security and the lives of the men and women who serve in our intelligence services if we send a message that this is not acceptable and there will be a price to be paid. In light of the FBI Director's announcement, I have introduced legislation with the junior Senator from Colorado, Mr. Gardner, to do just that. This legislation is called the TRUST Act. It would revoke the security clearance of anyone found to have demonstrated extreme carelessness in the handling of classified information and would keep them from receiving a clearance in the future so they couldn't do this again. It would also clarify existing law so that everyone understands that extreme carelessness, which the FBI found in the case of Secretary Clinton and her staff, basically becomes the legal standard whether or not you think it constituted gross negligence. There are many people whose legal opinion I respect, such as former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who said that extreme carelessness and gross negligence are basically the same thing. I heard Mayor Giuliani--former distinguished U.S. prosecutor, former third person in line at the Justice department--say there is plenty of evidence with which to prosecute somebody who has done the things and said the things Secretary Clinton and her staff have. But we understand that Director Comey has taken that off the table, and now Attorney General Lynch has said we are going to close the file. But the truth is, Secretary Clinton and her staff have proven that they are either unable or disinterested in keeping safe highly sensitive classified information, and they have gone so far as to cover up this scandal at every step along the way. I think that should mean at minimum that they forfeit the privilege of having a security clearance so at least they cannot do this again. Yesterday, Director Comey made clear that Secretary Clinton and her staff should have known better. That seems self-evident with somebody with long experience in the Federal Government--from First Lady, to U.S. Senator, to Secretary of State. With the highest level of security clearance in the Federal Government, she should have known better. She was reckless and careless in the way she handled this classified information. Add to that the frightening implications of this sensitive information getting into the hands of our adversaries, such as the Russians or Chinese intelligence agencies, and any reasonable person would come to one conclusion: They have to be held accountable and there has to be some penalty for putting our Nation's security at risk. I will continue to call on the Department of Justice to be open and transparent. Director Comey said that he thought that the circumstances of this case, while they didn't rise to the level sufficient for indictment, that transparency was very important. That is why he made the really unprecedented announcement that he did, which frankly far exceeded his authority as the investigative agency, where he said no reasonable prosecutor would have sought an indictment in this case. But I hope the Justice Department responds to the letter which I sent on today's date wherein I asked him to release any unclassified information as it relates to this scandal. The American taxpayers deserve to see all of the investigation--which cost the American taxpayers millions of dollars--especially in light of the fact that there will be no criminal prosecution, according to Director Comey's recommendation and according to the decision of the Justice Department to close the case yesterday. I urge Secretary Clinton to ask the Justice Department to release the FBI reports and any transcript of her 3\1/2\-hour long interview as well because I think the American people deserve it. I suspect what we would find is that Secretary Clinton's lawyers said: No matter what you have done before, don't lie to the FBI in that 3\1/2\-hour interview, because that lawyer and Secretary Clinton would know that no matter what you have done or haven't done before, if you actually lie to an FBI agent, that is an indictable and prosecutable crime in and of itself. So I have reasonable confidence that she did finally come clean and tell the truth to the FBI in that interview. Now, the only right thing to do, in the interests of the sort of transparency Director Comey talked about--since there can be no prosecution and no indictment, the only right thing to do in the interests of transparency and public accountability is for that transcript of the 3\1/2\-hour- long interview to be released to the American people so they can judge for themselves. I believe the American people deserve at least that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my letter of July 7 to the Honorable Loretta Lynch.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we can have the debate about judges, but I think we ought to first take care of the business before us that the Senate voted to proceed to, which is to deal with the legislation to avoid the State-by-State requirement for labeling our food products, which has been agreed to by the Senator from Michigan, the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, together with the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Kansas. We ought to be taking care of that, and we also ought to be taking care of this. This is urgent. How people can think we need to deal with these lists of judges and sort of hijack the agenda and distract us from our work on preventing these sort of birth defects is, frankly, a misplacement of priorities. I object.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as the Senator knows, we have a process for considering district judges. It is the prerogative of the majority to set those votes. Frankly, in light of the process we do have, as the Senator knows, this is not the appropriate process. But I do agree with her on one thing: that the Senate ought to do its job. One of the things we could do, which has received broad bipartisan, bicameral support, is to fund the efforts to combat the Zika virus, which creates the devastating birth defects we talked about a moment ago. While I object to this request, there are things we ought to be able to do before we break.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I am not mistaken, we are trying to deal with a biotechnology issue when it comes to our agriculture supply, which was voted out of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and I know the Senator from Kansas, the distinguished chairman of the committee, would like to get to it but for the diversions caused by these sorts of requests which the Senator knows will be objected to. If the Senator is really concerned about doing our job and taking care of our Nation's business, then she ought to join me in voting for the $1.1 billion in funding for the Zika virus, which is a national health care emergency, and certainly the pictures I have had here previously demonstrate the consequences of a failure to deal with this Zika virus. Unfortunately, this baby has suffered a devastating birth defect known as microcephaly--literally a shrunken skull and brain--and is condemned to an uncertain future in life, not to mention the consequences on the family. I would implore the Senator from Massachusetts, let's get to work doing this, which I believe the Senator has already voted for the $1.1 billion in funding. Yet when we brought this up, all we got were objections and stonewalling from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Frankly, I don't understand it. It is a terrible mistake, and I don't want one baby in America to suffer this sort of birth defect because we dithered and did not do our duty when it came to providing adequate funding to combat the Zika virus. This is something we should take care of before we break on July 15. We can fight about judges any other time, but this is a true public health emergency. And how Senators can come down here and try to hijack the floor to talk about something else when we are ignoring the very work before us in dealing with this biotechnology agriculture issue or dealing with something even more pressing, such as avoiding birth defects and these sorts of devastating consequences as a result of this Zika virus, I do not understand. I do not understand the Senator's priorities, and I object.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, some have taken yesterday's announcement by FBI Director Comey as vindicating Secretary Clinton for her use of a private, unsecured email server. But that would be exactly the wrong conclusion to draw. While the FBI did not recommend that the former Secretary of State be indicted, the concerns I have previously raised time and again have only been reaffirmed by the facts uncovered by Director Comey and the FBI's investigation. It is now clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Secretary Clinton behaved with extreme carelessness in her handling of classified information and that she and her staff lied to the American people and, at the same time, put our Nation at risk. First, Director Comey said unequivocally that Secretary Clinton and her team were ``extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.'' He went so far as to describe specific email chains that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level at the time they were sent and received--in other words, at the highest classification level in the intelligence community. Remember, Secretary Clinton said that she never sent emails that contained classified information. Well, that proved to be false as well. The FBI Director made clear none of those emails should have been on an unclassified server--period--and that Secretary Clinton and her staff should have known better. Director Comey noted that Secretary Clinton's actions were ``particularly concerning'' because these highly classified emails were housed on a server that didn't have full-time security staff like those at other departments and agencies of the Federal Government. It is pretty clear that Secretary Clinton thought she could do anything she wanted, even if it meant sending classified information over her personal, unsecured home server. It should shock every American that America's top diplomat--someone who had access to our country's most sensitive information--acted with such carelessness in an above-the-law sort of manner. Unfortunately, our threshold for being shocked at revelations like this has gotten unacceptably high. I saw a poll reported recently that 81 percent of the respondents in that poll believed Washington is corrupt. Public confidence is at an alltime low, and we ask ourselves how that could be. Well, unfortunately, it is the sort of activity we have seen coming from Secretary Clinton and her misrepresentations and--frankly, there is no way to sugarcoat it--her lies to the American people--lies that were revealed in plain contrast yesterday by Director Comey's announcement. Secondly, we know the FBI found that Secretary Clinton behaved at odds with the story she has been telling the American people, as I said a moment ago. To be blunt, yesterday's announcement proved that she has not been telling the American people the truth for a long, long time now. When news of her private server first broke, Secretary Clinton said: I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e- mail. There is no classified material. Yesterday, Director Comey made clear that wasn't true--not by a long shot. In fact, he said more than 100 emails on her server were classified, and, as I mentioned, that includes some of the highest levels of classification. We are talking not just about some abstraction here. We are talking about people gaining intelligence-- some in highly dangerous circumstances--who have been exposed to our Nation's adversaries because of the recklessness or extreme carelessness of Secretary Clinton and her staff. Another example: Secretary Clinton also maintained that she gave the State Department quick access to all of her work-related emails. Again, according to Director Comey, that wasn't true either. He said the FBI discovered several thousand work-related emails that Secretary Clinton didn't turn in to the State Department 2 years ago. From the beginning, Secretary Clinton and her staff have done their dead-level best to play down her misconduct, even if that meant lying to the American people. To make matters even worse, Director Comey confirmed that Secretary Clinton's actions put our national security and those who are on the frontlines protecting our national security in jeopardy. The FBI Director said that hostile actors had access to the email accounts of those people with whom Secretary Clinton regularly communicated with from her personal account. We know she used her personal email--in the words of the FBI Director--``extensively'' while outside of the continental United States, including in nations of our adversaries. The FBI's conclusion is that it is possible that hostile actors gained access to her personal email account, which, as I said a moment ago, included information classified at the highest levels recognized by our government. My point is that this is not a trivial matter. Remember that several months ago, Secretary Gates--former Secretary of Defense and head of the CIA, serving both in the George W. Bush and the Obama administrations--said he thought the odds were pretty high that the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians had compromised Clinton's server-- again, all the time while she is conducting official business as Secretary of State for the U.S. Government. It was also reported last fall that Russian-linked hackers tried to hack into Secretary Clinton's emails on at least five occasions. It is hard to know, much less estimate, the potential damage done to our Nation's security as a result of this extreme carelessness demonstrated by Secretary Clinton and her staff. In reality, it is impossible for us to know for sure. But what is clear is that Secretary Clinton acted recklessly and repeatedly lied to the American people, and I should point out that she didn't do so for any particularly good reason. None of the explanations Secretary Clinton has offered, convenience and the like, have held up to even the slightest scrutiny. Her intent was obvious, though. It was to avoid the accountability that she feared would come from public recognition of her official conduct. So she wanted to do it in secret, away from the prying eyes of government watchdogs and the American people. The FBI may not have found evidence of criminal intent, but there is no doubt about her intent to evade the laws of the United States--not just criminal laws that Director Comey talked about but things like the Freedom of Information laws, which make sure the American people have access to the information that their government uses to make decisions on their behalf. These are important pieces of legislation that are designed to give the American people the opportunity to know what they have a right to know so they can hold their elected officials accountable. In the end, this isn't just a case of some political novice who doesn't understand the risks involved or someone who doesn't really understand the protocols required of a high-level government employee. This is a case of someone who, as Director Comey pointed out, should have known better. I know Secretary Clinton likes to talk about her long experience in politics as the spouse of a President of the United States when she served as First Lady, as a United States Senator, and then as Secretary of State. But all of this experience, as Director Comey said, should have taught her better than she apparently learned. The bottom line is that Secretary Clinton actively sought out ways to hide her actions as much as possible, and in doing so, she put our country at risk. For a Secretary of State to conduct official business--including transmitting and receiving information that is classified at the highest levels known by our intelligence community-- on a private, unsecured server when sensitive national defense information would likely pass through is not just a lapse of judgment; it is a conscious decision to put the American people in harm's way. As Director Comey noted, in similar circumstances, people who engage in what Secretary Clinton did are ``often subject to security or administrative sanctions''; that is, they are held accountable, if not criminally, in some other way. He said that obviously is not within the purview of the FBI. But he said that other people, even if they aren't indicted, will be subjected to security or administrative sanctions. Secretary Clinton evidently will not be prosecuted criminally, but she should be held accountable. From the beginning, I have had concerns about what Secretary Clinton did and whether this investigation would be free of politics. However one feels about the latter, it is clear that Secretary Clinton's actions were egregious and that there is good reason why the American people simply don't trust her and why she should be held accountable. In closing, I would just say that we know there was an extensive investigation conducted by the FBI, and we know that Director Comey said that no reasonable prosecutor would seek an indictment and prosecute Secretary Clinton for her actions. That being the case, I would join my colleagues--Senator Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and others--who have called for the public release of the FBI's investigation so we can know the whole story. That would also include the transcript from the 3\1/2\ hour interview that Secretary Clinton gave to the FBI, I believe just last Saturday. That way, the American people can have access to all the information. What I suspect it would reveal--because it is a crime to lie to an FBI agent, I suspect Secretary Clinton, perhaps for the first time, in her interview with the FBI told the FBI the truth. If I were her lawyer, I certainly would advise her: No matter what happens, you had better tell the truth in that FBI interview because the coverup is something you can be indicted for as well. So I suspect what happened is that, in that FBI interview, she did tell the FBI the truth. That is where Director Comey got so much of his information, which he then used to dismantle brick by brick the public narrative that Secretary Clinton has been spinning to the American people for the last couple of years. If transparency and accountability are important, as Director Comey said yesterday, you would think that Secretary Clinton would want to put this behind her by also supporting the public release of this investigation, as well as the transcript of her interview with the FBI. I will be listening very carefully to see whether she joins us in making this request. But under the circumstances, where she no longer has any credible fear of indictment or prosecution, she owes to the public--and we owe to the public--that the entire evidence be presented to them in an open and transparent way. That is why the FBI should release this information, particularly the transcript of this interview she gave to FBI agents for 3\1/2\ hours at the FBI's headquarters downtown. Then, and only then, will the American people be able to render a well-informed and an adequate judgment on her actions taken as a whole because right now there appear to be nothing but good reasons why, in poll after poll after poll, people say they just don't trust her. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, about 24 hours ago our Democratic friends filibustered an appropriations bill for $1.1 billion that they themselves had said was an emergency, denying mothers pregnant with babies potentially like this one depicted here from suffering the devastating birth defects associated with microcephaly. You can see the shrunken skull associated with a shrunken brain--a devastating impact. This is the principal danger of the Zika virus, which heretofore had been limited to South America and Central America, places like Puerto Rico, sadly, and Haiti. The mosquito that carries this virus is native to Texas, Louisiana, Florida, and the southern most parts of the United States. So far the only cases--save one recently in Florida--of infection from the Zika virus have been from people who traveled to those regions and then returned to the United States. As I said, it appears there has been one reported case in Florida that has been contracted on the mainland of the United States. I simply do not understand how the Democratic leader from Nevada and his colleagues could turn this public health crisis into a political circus. When a pregnant woman contracts Zika, it can cause microcephaly like this. Of course, you can imagine, even if you are just a woman of childbearing age, the possibility that you might contract Zika--not knowing how long that virus remains in your body--would cause tremendous anxiety. You can imagine what this devastating birth defect does not only to the baby involved but to the families who must necessarily support them. This condition is tragic. It can cause seizures, intellectual disabilities, hearing and vision problems, and developmental delays, and of course a premature death. That is the kind of life that awaits these children and the families of children born with microcephaly if they are fortunate enough to survive. As I mentioned yesterday, it was reported that a child with microcephaly was born in Florida. In this case, I stand corrected. That was not as a result of a mosquito bite in the United States, but rather the mother contracted the virus while in Haiti and traveled back to her home in Florida. The simple point is, this is playing with fire. It was just a few weeks ago, actually May 23, 2016, when the Democratic leader insisted we immediately fund the President's request of $1.9 billion in emergency funding. 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. I think the urgency Senator Reid was expressing was felt by all of us, but we know there is a right way and a wrong way to appropriate money in the U.S. Congress. We have to pass legislation in the Senate, we have to pass legislation in the House, and then we have to come together in a conference committee to reconcile those differences. It is the conference report that is the product of a negotiation between the House and the Senate that funded this effort at the level that actually passed the Senate just a few short weeks ago. Every single one of our Democratic friends voted for funding the Zika crisis at $1.1 billion. Yet yesterday, all but I believe one of our Democratic colleagues then voted against the very funding they said was an emergency back at the end of May. We know given the warmer weather in the southernmost part of the United States and the fact that the mosquito that carries this virus is native to the southern part of the United States--we know this risk is on our doorstep, and it is really shameful our Democratic colleagues put politics ahead of sound public policy. Here are some of the excuses they gave, and none of them withstand any sort of scrutiny. First of all, they said: Well, this doesn't provide enough money, even though all of them voted for funding at this level of $1.1 billion. They know that if in fact the public health needs in the country are significant enough that more funding is necessary, there will be an opportunity at some point, after due deliberation and discussion and appreciation for the nature of the problem and what the proper response would be for us to act again--but they already voted for funding at this level. The next bogus argument is that this is somehow an attack on women's health; specifically, on Planned Parenthood. The fact is, there is not a word of Planned Parenthood in this bill. You will look in vain for the word ``Planned Parenthood'' because it is simply not there. What the Appropriations Committee decided to do and what the Senate and House working together decided was to direct funding for contraceptive birth control purposes to community health centers. It didn't exclude Planned Parenthood. In fact, if you are a Medicaid beneficiary, Planned Parenthood is a Medicaid provider and you can get those services provided at Planned Parenthood. The other bogus argument is somehow there are environmental protection concerns. Well, the very virus that causes this terribly devastating birth defect is carried by mosquitoes. Why in the world would our colleagues across the aisle interfere with efforts to try to kill more mosquitoes before they cause this sort of devastating birth defect? This legislation doesn't erode environmental protections. It provides targeted regulatory relief to combat mosquitoes that carry this virus for a short period of time by making more insecticides available to public health officials like those in Houston I visited with recently who said part of their frontline effort to combat this virus is to kill mosquitoes, and it has informed the public that if you have pooling water in a flower bed or somewhere that can be a breeding ground for mosquitoes, you need to be attentive to that and eliminate that place where mosquitoes can breed and propagate. So there is simply no good reason to deny funding to mothers who are worried about the possibility that they may contract the Zika virus that results in the devastating birth defects like that exhibited by Laura here. That is her name, Laura. She is 3 months old. I hope when we come back next week, as the majority leader has said, the Democratic colleagues who voted against this emergency funding bill they so ardently had insisted upon for so long will have another chance to vote. I hope in the interim our friends across the aisle will search their souls--really their consciences--and they will have maybe a little twinge of regret for having voted to deny the funding for development of a vaccine and insect control and for research so we can learn more about this virus so we can learn how to combat it more effectively. That is what they denied us yesterday. That is what they denied women like Laura's mother who need this money so this doesn't happen to anybody else's child. Mr. President, in just a few moments, we are going to have a chance to vote on a fiscally responsible bill to help Puerto Rico better take care of its economy. We know the government of Puerto Rico has gotten themselves into an impossible situation--$70 billion of debt that its government can't repay. We can all think about reasons they shouldn't have done that, and obviously it is fiscally responsible to do so, but they are in dire financial trouble, and they are going to have some $2 billion of payments they owe on July 1 to avoid defaulting on the debt. I have been here long enough to know what happens when there is a fiscal crisis, and Puerto Rico is after all part of the United States. Puerto Ricans are American citizens. I have been here long enough to know that in an emergency setting with a fiscal financial crisis, one of the first things that happens is people will come to Congress and say: Can you provide a bailout--a bailout using taxpayer dollars. Well, a good thing--maybe the best thing--about the legislation we are getting ready to pass, which passed in the House of Representatives, is that not one penny of tax dollars is going to be used to deal with this financial crisis in Puerto Rico. You can look at the Congressional Budget Office score. They scored zero in terms of expenditure of tax dollars for bailing out Puerto Rico. Some of us have seen ads on television that claim this bill is a bailout. Those are run by the very hedge funds that enjoyed the profits from investing in Puerto Rican bonds that are going to take a haircut because of the restructuring of that debt. Of course they are going to try to discourage us from trying to do anything about it, but we shouldn't listen to the hedge funds on Wall Street and the people who have gotten rich investing in these risky bonds. We ought to do right by all American taxpayers and make sure they are protected from a run on the Treasury by passing this legislation. As we know, this legislation would establish a Federal oversight board that would help to restructure their debt and going forward help them get on a fiscally responsible path because what our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico need most is an economy that is growing, creating jobs and opportunities so people can live where they were born, if they want to. They can stay there. Many of them have been leaving the island for some time because, frankly, it has turned into a fiscal and health-related nightmare. I am glad we advanced this bill a little bit earlier today. We need to pass it and get it to the President's desk. I realize it is not perfect. I know many of us wish we had an opportunity to offer amendments and constructive suggestions, but given the timing for both the deadline for default on July 1 and the fact that we did not get this bill from the House until recently, we are on this constrained timeline, which makes it hard, if not impossible, to offer additional amendments, but it is important we pass this legislation and get our work done. We will have a chance to vote on three matters. We will have an effort by the Senator from New Jersey to tear down the so-called amendment tree so he can offer some additional amendments. Those amendments are measures such as eliminating some of the protections that I think are necessary to make this bill a better bill. Then we are going to have a budget point of order. I talked to the chairman of the Budget Committee. He said the budget point of order is a technicality because it has more to do with jurisdictional matters and not the fact that it busts the budget. In fact, this bill doesn't spend a penny--net--of Federal taxpayer dollars. Finally, we will have a chance to vote on final passage and then get it up to the President's desk. I hope our colleagues will work with us. We had 68 votes on the earlier vote earlier today. I hope we will have a big vote in favor of fiscal responsibility, in favor of legislation that would avoid the potential for a taxpayer bailout, and demonstrate that we can simply work together on a bipartisan basis to pass good legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield back all our time.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will tell you what shameful is. It is allowing more women of childbearing age to contract the Zika virus so their babies can end up looking like this. That is shameful. Make no mistake about it--our colleagues across the aisle have filibustered on a partisan basis a bipartisan bill that funded our anti-Zika efforts. It also included measures to support our veterans. So we need to be absolutely clear. I heard the Democratic leader basically saying that, because his party is a sore loser in a conference report they don't love, they are going to block funding to prevent more babies from contracting the birth defect that is suffered by this baby shown in this picture. Microcephaly, basically, is a shrunken skull. This baby's prognosis is not good. Women of child-bearing age are scared to death that their baby will end up like this baby. Yet their concerns have fallen on deaf ears among those in this Chamber--largely Democrats--who voted against advancing this legislation. We are getting closer to mosquito season. The warmer weather means we are going to see more mosquitoes, and we need to get this on the President's desk as soon as possible. The President himself asked for $1.9 billion in funding and is calling this a public health emergency, but our Democratic friends blocked it because they are sore losers in a conference negotiation report that they don't like. We know that this virus can affect an entire generation. This birth defect is heartbreaking and life-altering, and we know it has taken a tremendous toll in much of Latin America. Fortunately, so far the only cases of Zika virus in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control, are from people who have traveled to South America and Central America and contracted the virus there and came home. So at least so far, the mosquitoes that carry this disease are not spreading it in the United States, but we know that will change soon. That is why we heard from the Senators from Florida, Texas, and others. They talked about its potential impact in the United States and particularly in our warmer States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, severe microcephaly like this is associated with seizures, intellectual disability, hearing and vision problems, and developmental delays, and that is assuming this child survives into adulthood, which most, unfortunately, do not. So how can our friends across the aisle who voted against this conference report, which provides Zika funding, look the mother of this baby in the eye and say: We have plenty of good reasons to deny help for more children like yours. We know this impacts not only children and these babies, but it also impacts whole families. It means mothers and fathers anxious about the welfare of their baby are regularly going to the doctor to gauge progress and check development. It means finding speech, occupational, and physical therapies to help the child live as long of a normal life as they can. One neurologist quoted in the New York Times said: ``There is no way to fix the problem, just therapies to deal with the downstream consequences.'' So once a baby like this contracts the Zika virus, there is no way to fix the problem. The only defense is to prevent children like this from getting the Zika virus by getting the funding that Democrats just voted down to the medical authorities so they can look for a vaccine and so we can do mosquito eradication and the other things we know we need to do from a public health perspective to prevent more babies like this one from developing these devastating birth defects. As I said, there is no cure. Once a baby has it, he or she has it for life. That means that the family will have to live with the great uncertainty about the health and well-being of their child as they consider the lifelong implications of caring for a child with this kind of disability. We know we don't have to accept this as the outcome. We know there is a way to fight it, and that is by preventing the Zika virus from spreading to the United States, but unfortunately Senate Democrats just voted against that. As I said, there are already hundreds of travel-related cases of the virus scattered throughout the country, and I hope the administration does more to underscore the real health threats that exist when people travel to areas where Zika is at its worst. That is why I joined with one of our House colleagues who is a medical doctor, Congressman Michael Burgess, in asking Secretary of State Kerry and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Frieden, how they are coordinating travel warnings to regions where Zika has run rampant. Texans and all Americans need to understand the risks associated with travel to those areas, and they need real-time, accurate information so they can determine whether they should alter their travel plans. Over the past few months, the mosquitoes who carry this virus have been inching their way north, and today locally transmitted cases have been reported in Puerto Rico and throughout the Caribbean. In other words, this virus, along with its devastating effects, is at our doorstep. I had a chance to visit with experts in my State at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston and the Texas Medical Center, and they agree this is a major public health concern and we need to act and act soon. That is why we have to prepare for the arrival of the mosquitoes that carry this virus in the United States, something that our Democratic colleagues have just prevented. Fortunately, counties and cities throughout Texas have already been working hard to counter the spread of the virus. When I was in Houston recently, public health officials back in April told me about measures they were implementing to track and manage the spread of Zika throughout the Houston area, one of the most populous urban areas in the country, and the efforts to eradicate the breeding grounds of the mosquitoes that transmit the virus. Governor Abbott of Texas is also taking steps to make sure that we are as prepared as possible. But we can't do it alone. Unfortunately, the sort of help that is needed by States like mine for mothers and fathers who could have children like this has just been blocked. Governor Abbott invited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to review the State's plan to combat the virus and he appointed an infectious disease task force to make policy recommendations on how to prevent and respond to infectious diseases including Zika. States like mine and communities like Houston are doing their part, but Senate Democrats refuse to do their part. So it should go without saying that now on the frontlines of this major public health concern we need to respond at the Federal level. That is why it is shocking and shameful to see so many Senate Democrats oppose this bipartisan effort to guard against the virus, particularly because they have repeatedly called for an expedited resolution of this appropriations request. Over a month ago, the minority leader made clear that he viewed Zika funding a major priority and one that demanded action. Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, on May 23, 2016, 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.'' Well, of course, Senator Reid was advocating bypassing the Senate legislative process, and it was really inappropriate for him to demand a $1.9 billion spending appropriation that adds to the deficit and debt without letting Congress do its job, but now the House and Senate have both passed legislation and agreed to a conference report that Senate Democrats have just voted down. Senator Reid said for us to fail to meet this crisis would be irresponsible, and yet he just advocated failing to meet that responsibility and address the crisis. We can't gamble with the health and well-being of women and children in this country just to serve partisan political needs, and most of the things that the Democratic leader raised in terms of objections to this conference report are just figments of his imagination. There is no mention of Planned Parenthood in this conference report. I would challenge anybody to find Planned Parenthood mentioned once. As the Democratic leader knows, Planned Parenthood is a Medicaid provider, and so Medicaid eligible individuals can still seek whatever services they want through Medicaid at Planned Parenthood. Then there is the Senator from Washington, the top-ranking Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee, who actually crafted the bipartisan Zika response and then walked away from it and voted against it. She said on May 26, 2016: 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 the virus without any further delay. Well, I agree, and I frankly do not understand how Senate Democrats, having taken this position previously, can come in here and engage in a partisan filibuster to stop funding for this impending public health crisis. Just last week, the senior Senator from New York said: ``Every day we wait, every day is increasing the risk that we will have problems with Zika.'' Well, today we had the chance to send a bill to the President's desk that would meet the demands of Senator Reid, Senator Murray, and Senator Schumer, but they blocked it for fanciful and imagined reasons. One of the arguments that Senate Democrats make against the bill is that more money is needed, yet this is funded at the very level that the Senate agreed to--$1.1 billion. President Obama and our Democratic colleagues repeatedly make the argument that throwing money at the problem will fix everything. Well, throwing no money at the problem will fix nothing, which is what they voted for today. Less than 7 percent--just $40 million of the $589 million transferred from the Ebola fund to fight Zika has been obligated as of early June. That translates to easily more than $500 million the President can still use to fight this cause in addition to the $1.1 billion included in this bill. We have heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle about this great need to prepare the country for this upcoming health crisis and how essential it is to quickly get resources to those studying the virus and working on prevention efforts and perhaps discovering a vaccine. But when given the chance to do that, Democrats shut it down. They filibustered the bipartisan bill that they themselves have been asking the Senate to pass, which is absolutely disgraceful. So I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will reconsider their misguided efforts and follow through with what they have been saying we need all along--the funding to fight a real public health threat. It is a public health priority that demands our attention and must be addressed now and not later. Mr. President, I wonder what the Senators who voted against this bipartisan Zika funding bill would tell the mother of this child or perhaps another woman who is pregnant and wondering whether her child will end up with this virus and this terrible birth defect. Could they possibly look that woman in the eye and justify the reasons they have voted against funding so that other children and families can avoid this terrible devastating birth defect? I bet none of them could look that prospective mother in the eye and say: Well, we voted against protecting your baby and your family for good and sufficient reasons. As I said earlier, many of the reasons stated by the Democratic leader are imagined and not real--like this idea that somehow Planned Parenthood has been targeted, which is not even mentioned in the legislation. I can't imagine a more disgraceful vote than what some of our colleagues have cast to deny funding for this impending public health crisis. I hope they will reconsider. I hope the families who worry about the health of their children will call their offices and say: Why did you vote against funding the money necessary to eradicate the mosquitoes that carry this disease? Why did you vote against further scientific research to learn how to combat it? Why did you vote against our developing a vaccine that can prevent the spread of this disease not only here in the United States but around the world? I will bet none of them could look that mother in the eye because what our Democratic colleagues did today by voting down this funding was absolutely hypocritical, it was cynical, and it was shameful.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, on another matter, the Senate has been discussing the need to respond to terrorist threats within our own borders. To recap, this isn't about people traveling from the United States to the Middle East and returning or people coming from the Middle East to the United States. It is about that, but primarily what we are worried about in Orlando is the radicalization of an American citizen by propaganda, poisonous propaganda being issued by the Islamic State, and that falls in a fertile field with particularly susceptible individuals like the shooter in Orlando. That is one reason it is so important we complete our work on the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill. It keeps many of our counterterrorism efforts going by funding those who are on the frontlines, such as the FBI and other law enforcement. I hope we can get that legislation completed, too, and in so doing underscore our commitment to those public servants who defend the homeland. We can't lose sight of the heart of the problem: a lack of any coherent plan to defeat ISIS and a foreign policy missing direction and leadership from the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. Over the past few days, it has become even clearer that not even those in the Obama administration are onboard with his short-sighted and reckless policies. First, more than 50 diplomats sent an internal protest memo to harshly criticize the President's Syria policy. You can find that draft version of the memo online. It is four frank pages, decrying Obama's failed wait-and-see-approach to Syria, from some of those who have been most involved with the policy. The New York Times was forced to admit the number of signatures on it, 51, was ``extremely large, if not unprecedented.'' I wish I had time to read the full memo aloud here, but let me quote from a few paragraphs--actually, from the final paragraph. It says: The status quo in Syria will continue to present increasingly dire, if not disastrous, humanitarian, diplomatic, and terrorism-related challenges. For five years, the scale of these consequences has overwhelmed our efforts to deal with this conflict; the United States cannot contain the conflict with current policy. . . . [W]e firmly believe it is time the United States, guided by our strategic interests and moral convictions, lead a global effort to put an end to this conflict. What an indictment of the leadership of the White House by people who are part of the Obama administration. I am grateful that these diplomats opted to stand up and be counted and tell the truth for our own security as well as those in the Middle East who are suffering so much. The administration's policies--really, their inaction--have languished for 5 years with all signs pointing to a much needed course correction. Still, even after the redlines were crossed by Syria's murderous dictator and as the supposed JV team of terrorists are exporting deadly violence into our own country, the White House views its policies in a positive light. It is not just these diplomats working in the State Department of President Obama who are raising red flags. Recently the CIA Director agreed with them while testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee. He admitted we are further away from a diplomatic solution in Syria than a year ago, largely because of Russia's involvement in propping up the regime of Bashar al-Assad. He confirmed that ISIS, the Islamic State, is preparing to conduct further attacks, in part by training and encouraging its followers to carry out attacks in their home countries, such as the United States of America. Contrary to the narrative the White House is selling, Director Brennan called ISIS a ``formidable adversary'' that is building a global terror network. He stressed that Libya, in particular, is a growing hotbed of Islamic extremism. Recently I traveled to Tunisia with members of the House Homeland Security Committee, and we met with the Libyan country team--the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and the other members of that country team who had not even been able to go to Libya because it was so dangerous. They were actually working in exile in Tunisia next door. Director Brennan called the ISIS offshoot in Libya the most developed and most dangerous branch of the terrorist group. How did we get here? President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton failed in their efforts to stabilize the country after toppling Qadhafi. Didn't we learn anything in Iraq? Apparently, the Obama administration did not. They had no plan for what to do once Qadhafi was gone. Evidently, President Obama opted to lead from behind during the military campaign and then not lead at all after Qadhafi fell. Unfortunately, recent testimony from the President's nominee to head the U.S. forces in Africa, or AFRICOM, suggested the administration hadn't learned any lessons after this disaster. When asked whether there was a strategy in place for dealing with all the threats emanating from Libya, the nominee, the Marine Corps general who was testifying, said he wasn't aware of any strategy, even though he agreed that ISIS has a significant presence in Libya and constitutes an imminent threat to our country here at home. Just a few days ago, an article in the Washington Post highlighted the difference between what our military leaders believe is necessary to accomplish the mission and what the White House begrudgingly agreed to give them, which is less than what they need. According to the article, U.S. commanders on the ground in Iraq are readying a request to the White House for more troops so we can help the Iraqi Army secure Fallujah and eventually take back Mosul. The article also notes that military leaders have been regularly highlighting the need for more troops in the region--and quickly--but are concerned the administration will be reluctant to commit more. That is because the President has instituted an artificial troop cap for Iraq and Syria--it is about the numbers, it is not about the mission-- just like he did in Afghanistan, and he doesn't want to add to that no matter what happens. Apparently, the foolish campaign promises the President made when he was running are more important to him now than actually defeating ISIS abroad. As it stands, his legacy will be leaving Iraq more unstable and more dangerous for U.S. interests than it was when he came into office. This should be a no-brainer. We don't succeed on the battlefield when we ignore the counsel of the experts, our uniformed military leaders, and we can't succeed on the ground in Iraq when the President will not provide the resources necessary to carry out the operations he has asked them to perform. We don't need a bandaid. We don't need more calls for diplomacy and other hollow talking points in Libya. What we and the world need is American leadership and a commitment from the White House to root out and annihilate ISIS where it lives and breathes. I doubt the Orlando shooter would have pledged allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State if we had done what our military leadership believes we should have already done, which was to crush ISIS and defeat it. I doubt the Orlando shooter would have pledged allegiance to a leader whose movement had been crushed and destroyed, but he did it because he felt they were winning. When the watching world sees we lack the will to defeat ISIS, ISIS sympathizers around the world sense weakness, and they are emboldened in their plan to carry out attacks, including on U.S. soil. There is a direct relationship between the battlefield in Iraq and Syria and our neighborhoods and communities here in America. What happens there matters here. When the request from our military leadership arrives at the President's desk asking for more resources, he should remember Orlando, and he should grant the request. If he refuses or dithers, any resulting failure in Iraq and Syria or further attacks on the homeland will be part of his lasting legacy. From our diplomatic corps to our intelligence community, to the leaders of our military, all have directly or indirectly challenged the President's foreign policy in just the last few days. If you think about it, it is remarkable. It takes courage and real strength of conviction to buck the leader of your political party or of the administration. I hope the President listens to them because they are trying to help him make the right decision, and they are the real experts here. If the President will not act decisively against our adversaries abroad, Congress must do all it can do to guard against the enemy here at home. Passing appropriations bills that provide the resources for Federal, State, and local law enforcement is part of our responsibility. We need to make sure our first responders and law enforcement community have the resources they need, and I hope we get that done soon. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, we will soon vote on a bill that would provide funding for a coordinated response to the Zika virus--a virus that has already ravaged many parts of Latin America and places like Puerto Rico. Over the past few weeks, our Democratic friends have repeatedly stressed the urgency of this matter. And the summer months coming are likely to bring us more mosquitoes, which, of course, are the primary vector that carries this virus. Thankfully, in the United States, no one who has contracted the Zika virus has done so through a mosquito; it has been from people traveling to Central and South America, who have been bitten there--at least that is according to most current statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We know they are coming, and we need to act with dispatch. I know many of our friends across the aisle were very eager to get this done because they came down and made unanimous consent requests for $1.9 billion. As you will recall, the Senate passed an appropriation for $1.1 billion, and the only difference between the House and Senate was whether this would be deficit spending or whether it would actually be offset or paid for, which was the House's position. I think the House had the better argument. If we could pay for it, that would be ideal, but I think everybody agrees we need to get moving quickly to protect our communities. Of course, the people most vulnerable to the Zika virus are women of childbearing age. If a mosquito carrying Zika were to bite you, you might not even notice it or you might feel as though you have had a little flu symptom for a day and then it would go away. We simply don't know enough about how long the virus is retained in the body, so even if a woman isn't pregnant when she is bitten, the fact that she was bitten and is of childbearing age and what that might mean is an unknown. It is frightening, particularly if you are a woman of childbearing age. I hope we will act with dispatch. I know it is not fast enough for some of our colleagues who wanted us to do this without the usual conference committee with the House to try to reconcile differences, but we need to get this done. It is surprising now to hear some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they actually plan to filibuster this legislation, and the President apparently is indicating he might veto it. I am really interested to hear how they arrived from point A to point B, having taken the position several weeks ago that we ought do it immediately, and now, once it has come to fruition, saying we can simply blow it up, that it is not good enough, and not complete our work here. It really is unfortunate. I hope cooler heads prevail. This country is on the verge of a public health crisis, and talking to Governor Abbott in Texas and also the public health officials there, I know they are very concerned about what this means. And I am sure, like the preceding speaker from Florida--Florida, Louisiana, and Texas are some very temperate, warm weather regions and are particularly vulnerable to this particular type of mosquito and this virus, but it could spread to other parts of the country, too, unless we act with dispatch tomorrow to approve this conference report and to get this bill to the President's desk and to get the money to the researchers and the people trying to develop a vaccine, which ultimately may be the ultimate tool in the toolbox so the people can be vaccinated so that, for example, women who are of childbearing age don't have to worry about the possibility of acquiring this disease or what it might mean to their unborn child. We need to make sure the doctors and the researchers and other public health officials on the front lines get the resources they need. The good news is that--taking some advice from the Senate and the House, Republicans, in particular--the President decided to reprogram $589 million left over in the Ebola account. They did that a few weeks ago. As of earlier this month, only $40 million of that $589 million has been obligated. There is a cushion there, but I think we should be careful about acting complacently when it comes to dealing with this particular crisis, or impending crisis. For the President and some of our colleagues who have been insistent that we act on this now to say ``We are going to filibuster it'' or ``The President will actually veto it'' is really pretty hard to get your head around, unless you conclude it is completely disingenuous and irresponsible. I would like to give our colleagues a little more credit than that. I am anxious to hear how they have changed their position so dramatically from just a few weeks ago. We will vote on this proposal tomorrow, and I hope that cooler heads will prevail and our colleagues will vote to support it, so we can quickly get the urgent resources needed to those public health services that are studying the virus, working on prevention--including mosquito eradication, which is an important part of this--as well as creating a vaccine. The minority leader, in particular, spent a considerable amount of time on the floor stressing how dire the need is to fund Zika prevention efforts. He and the rest of his caucus will have a clear choice. They can either play politics at the expense of the mothers and the children across the country, or they can simply decide to do the right thing and support the bipartisan Zika bill.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it is hard for me to say no to Senator Carper because he is such a nice guy and so reasonable, but this isn't a time to be making speeches; it is a time to object or not. So if he has a concluding remark----

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say that if we were united in our desire to actually get to a solution, something that could make a difference, I believe we could. But unfortunately this debate has been hijacked by some who believe that, frankly, the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right under the Constitution, and they are willing to presume that the government is right because out of mere suspicion your name appears on a secret classified list. I want to defeat the terrorists. I want to protect the American people. But I don't want to sacrifice who we are as a country and our conviction that constitutional rights are important, including the basic rights in the Bill of Rights, including the right to defend yourself and your family under the Second Amendment. There is a principle involved here, and in our desire to get to a solution, which I applaud--and the Senator is a reasonable person whom I have worked with in the past and whom I hope to work with in the future--in our haste to try to deal with this issue, we should not violate the very fundamental principles of our Constitution. That is really what is at stake. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I think later on this afternoon we will have an opportunity yet again to express ourselves on the terrible shooting in Orlando a little over a week ago. Some have wanted to make this a debate about the Second Amendment. Others said that maybe it would be more productive to solve the problem and prevent people like the Orlando shooter from ever being able to commit this terrorist attack. Sadly, yesterday we voted down the McCain-Burr amendment, which would have provided additional tools to the FBI, which had already had this shooter under investigation on two previous occasions and then taken him off the watch list, having found no evidence or not sufficient evidence to keep him on the watch list. The problem is, unfortunately, that failed. We know it is important to stop people who would commit acts like this from buying guns. We know we need to alert our law enforcement agencies when people whom they have reason to suspect are planning a terrorist attack. We know it is important to keep them from buying guns. Frankly, the Feinstein amendment and the Cornyn amendment we previously voted on both share those in common--no fly, no buy. The only major difference is whether we are going to engage in a presumption of guilt and deny due process of law. In other words, just because your name appears on some secret list maintained by the Obama administration or any administration, you could somehow be denied a constitutional right. I said earlier that the Second Amendment is one of the constitutional rights in the Bill of Rights, but there are others, obviously: the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment--you name it. If we are going to say somehow that based on a mere suspicion by government and your name on a secret list, you can be denied a constitutional right, that is a dangerous and slippery slope. Previously, we voted on an amendment that I offered. We got 53 votes--bipartisan support--for that amendment which would provide a means for the FBI to be notified. If somebody who was on one of these lists attempted to buy a gun, there would be a 3-day waiting period, and then the FBI would be able to conduct additional investigations-- let's say go to court, get a search warrant, get a wiretap, find out what this is all about and whether they ought to act. Frankly, terrorists--if they are too dangerous to buy a gun, they are too dangerous to be loose in our communities, and it would provide a means consistent with the Constitution for the FBI to do their job and to keep these dangerous terrorists off the street. We were told by some of our colleagues that the 3 days we provided in the bill wasn't enough. So we said we would be willing to discuss that. There is nothing magical about 3 days. It can't be a year, but it certainly can be more than 3 days. And we suggested that there be an alternative, perhaps, that more Members of the Senate would be comfortable with. We said that was flexible. Then there were some who said that a probable cause standard is too high a standard to impose on the government to deny somebody a constitutional right. We said that these are people who haven't yet committed crimes, and that is a criminal evidentiary standard. Maybe there is another standard we can agree on that is something more than just a suspicion or because you happen to be from a certain ethnicity or perhaps your religion. There has to be more than just targeting people based on ethnicity and religion or suspicion, but we said that would be flexible as well. So what it comes down to, and really the differences between the two pieces of legislation we are going to likely vote on this afternoon, is those who believe the government should not have to present the evidence they have in hand to an impartial magistrate or judge. It is just that simple. Some would say: Well, the fact that the government puts you on the list ought to be enough to deny you your constitutional rights. Well, having said that, we all believe that terrorists should not get access to guns, but we can't do this in a way that denies who we are as a people or denies our most fundamental law of the land, which is the due process provisions of the U.S. Constitution. So unfortunately we are engaged in this exercise that, frankly, I don't think would have made much of a difference to what happened in Orlando. To me, that is the great tragedy of the debate we have been having last week and this week. I doubt this would stop anyone who was a licensed firearm owner already and licensed security guard from doing what Oscar Mateen did. I think the McCain-Burr amendment which was voted down yesterday had some real potential because while the FBI conducted two separate investigations of this shooter previously because of comments he had made and suspicions they had, they didn't find sufficient evidence. An authority that the FBI calls their No. 1 legislative priority had lapsed; that is, to be able to use national security letters to not only gain access to telephone numbers--not content--and financial information but also the Internet addresses and email addresses on Mateen's computer and get that from his Internet service provider. What is so important about this is that it is not a grant of access to content. That requires a showing of probable cause in a court of law, consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But unfortunately, yesterday, the one tool that might have given the FBI some additional information that might have triggered a further investigation, might have kept Mateen on one of these lists, which would have heightened the surveillance and the investigation of this person--it didn't happen. I would just ask my colleagues, are we engaged here in trying to solve problems and save lives, or is this just a political exercise? Sadly, I think we are guilty of engaging in a political exercise when we are voting on things that actually would not have solved the problem. We know this is not the last time terrorists will try to attack American citizens here at home. It is going to happen again, sadly, unless we wake up and provide the FBI and our counterterrorism officials the intelligence they need so they can stop these sorts of lone wolf terrorists in place. This is the preeminent threat from ISIS today. It is not what is happening in Syria, not what is happening in Iraq, although that is a serious threat to stability in the Middle East; it is the fact that, unlike 9/11, they don't need to get in an airplane and come here because what they can do is radicalize American citizens in place using their poisonous propaganda on the Internet and through social media. I simply don't understand why some of our colleagues voted not to give the FBI this authority which is so important for them to collect the dots so they can connect the dots. That is the only way we are going to stop these people, is by making sure that, consistent with who we are as American people and consistent with the Constitution, we let law enforcement officials collect the dots so they can connect the dots. This afternoon I will be casting my vote in favor of due process of law before anyone's constitutional rights are denied. I would do that for the Second Amendment. I would do it for the First Amendment. I would do it for the Fourth Amendment. I would do it for every provision of our Constitution that represents a right--not given to us by government but our natural rights conferred by us by our Creator. At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time from 1:15 p.m. until 2 p.m., including any quorum calls, be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.