John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 463, S. 2577.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to, the Grassley amendment be agreed to, and the bill, as amended, be read a third time.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate Resolutions, which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 495, S. Res. 496, S. Res. 497, and S. Res. 498.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2815 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the past few days, we have been contemplating the horrific shooting in Orlando and asking ourselves how this could happen and, of course, grieving and praying and thinking about the people who lost their lives and their families and those who were injured. As the Presiding Officer knows, yesterday we had the opportunity to get briefed by the FBI Director and the Secretary of Homeland Security. What we learned is that there is still a lot left to learn and that the investigation is ongoing. But clearly this was not a random act of violence. This is not about somebody going to purchase a gun at a store and then going out and deciding indiscriminately to kill the first person they meet, but then again, neither was the shooting in San Bernardino a random act of violence or the attempted shooting in Garland, TX, which was thwarted by a security guard. These were calculated acts of terror and a reminder--a reminder of the threats to our homeland from ISIS, not just in the Middle East but right here at home by people who have never traveled to the Middle East but who communicate through social media and online and become radicalized by this ideology of hate, one that results in terrible tragedies such as the one we saw in Orlando. Sadly, our friends on the other side of the aisle have seen this as an opportunity to make this a political debate about gun control, and they simply are refusing to acknowledge the threat we face from radical Islam. Rather than trying to solve the problem, they are trying to drive a wedge between the American people and come up with something that basically does nothing. I think one thing that makes people crazy about Washington, DC, is when people stand up and claim to understand the problem and yet offer solutions that don't solve the problem but, rather, fit some sort of talking points or ideological agenda. It is clear that what we heard yesterday from our friends across the aisle has nothing to do with defeating ISIS or the threat of international terrorism or the radicalization of Americans in their homes. So today I am filing an amendment that I believe will offer a solution. I believe that if it had been enacted beforehand, it may have provided the law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI, the tools they need in order to identify somebody like the Orlando shooter beforehand and to take them off the streets. This amendment is called the SHIELD Act. It would not only stop terrorists from getting guns, but it would take them off the streets, and it would do so in a way that is consistent with our Constitution. I want to make this clear so there is no doubt at all. Every single Senator wants to deny terrorists access to the guns they use to harm innocent civilians. But there is a right way to do things and a wrong way. My friends on the other side of the aisle have put forward a measure that was voted on last December, sponsored by Mrs. Feinstein, the Senator from California. The bottom line is that proposal doesn't protect our constitutional rights, and it doesn't go far enough to make our country safer. Under Senator Feinstein's proposal, after being denied a gun for being on some classified list created by the government--lists that are often riddled with errors and include law- abiding citizens--the individual can go home, search the Internet for how to build a homemade bomb or go to the hardware store to buy everything they need to carry out some other sort of terrorist attack, and they are free to walk the streets and to plot that attack. As I mentioned, my legislation actually does what we need to do to give law enforcement, first, the notice that this individual is trying to buy a weapon but then an opportunity to take them off the streets and deny them access to a firearm. Their legislation does nothing to protect the due process rights of American citizens under the Bill of Rights and under our Constitution. Many of us remember that a few years ago, the late Teddy Kennedy cited his own frustration with showing up on a list that was created by the government in secret, only to find out that he, a United States Senator, was on a no-fly list. Back in 2004, he was put on the list and he was denied an airplane ticket. If Teddy Kennedy from the Kennedy family--one of the most powerful political families in America in our whole history--was denied an opportunity to get on an airplane because he was erroneously put on a no-fly list, you can imagine the problems the rest of us would have. Senator Kennedy said at the time: Now, if they had that kind of difficulty for a member of Congress . . . how in the world are average Americans who are going to get caught up in this kind of thing, how are they going to be able to get treated fairly and not have their rights abused? That is a pretty good question. It highlights my greater point that we have to be very careful. We need a robust response to protect American citizens but one that doesn't infringe on constitutional rights. If Senator Kennedy was placed on a watch list and had trouble getting his name removed, do we have any confidence that average Americans like the rest of us will not have their constitutional rights stripped, with no legal process to remedy it? In the United States of America, where I was born and grew up, we simply cannot deny somebody a constitutional right without due process of law and making the government come forward and presenting evidence to a judge so that a determination can be made not by the government but by an impartial third party. The proposal I am filing today will help fight terrorism at home and ensure that due process is protected. It is called the SHIELD Act. It would create a process for our law enforcement officials to actually investigate and look at the evidence. But it wouldn't just stop terrorists from buying guns; it would go further--certainly further than the Democrats' amendment--by helping law enforcement take them off the streets. Under my proposal, if someone who is known or suspected of being a terrorist tries to buy a gun, they will be blocked from doing so while the authorities carry out an investigation, followed by an expedited hearing where a judge can block the sale permanently if adequate evidence is produced. And importantly, if the judge determines there is probable cause to block the sale, they can do more than just block the sale; they can take the terrorist into custody. If we believe someone is dangerous enough to not be able to buy a gun, shouldn't we do our best to take them off the streets so they don't pose a danger to our communities? We also learned from Director Comey yesterday that there are additional tools the FBI does not currently have that we ought to make sure it has, things to make sure that they can use, for example, national security letters to collect not only financial information in counterterrorism cases, which they currently can, but also to make sure that Internet providers can provide IP addresses and email addresses-- not content. Not the content. That would require a court order and a showing of probable cause. But the fact is, if we are going to have the FBI and our law enforcement officials connect the dots, we are going to have to make sure they have the tools to collect the dots. That is what we need to be focusing on, not pursuing some opportunistic political agenda that will not solve any problems at all. I believe my amendment could have had an impact on the Orlando shooting because, as we all have learned, while the shooter in Orlando was not on a watch list at the time he bought the weapons he used in the shooting, he had been on a watch list and he had been investigated by the FBI. Unfortunately, they didn't come up with sufficient evidence with which to detain him at the time. Under my amendment, when somebody who was previously under investigation for suspicion of terrorism within the last 5 years--like the Orlando attacker--goes to buy the gun, the FBI and the State and local law enforcement authorities will be immediately notified, and they can then escalate their investigation. They can go to a judge and say: Judge, we need a wiretap so we can listen to--based on a showing of probable cause under the Fourth Amendment--we can listen to the conversations to see if they are calling people and engaging in another plot with coconspirators. In this way, I believe the SHIELD Act could have prevented the tragedy that occurred over the weekend in Orlando because this shooter was on a watch list within the previous 5 years, and if the FBI had been notified, which they would have been if he were on a watch list, then they could have escalated the investigation further and perhaps have discovered enough evidence to take him off the streets. This is a similar proposal to the one I offered back in December that garnered bipartisan support and received more votes than my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. As a matter of fact, we had 55 votes with a bipartisan majority on my amendment last December. This new amendment is a small tweak in modification, but it is a straightforward plan that reflects input from all sides, and it will stop terrorists from buying guns and will provide a means to get them off the streets but doing so in a way that ensures American citizens' constitutional rights will be respected. I think this just makes sense. I think it is pretty reasonable, and it is a good starting point if we are trying to address the real threat of Islamic extremism rearing its ugly head here at home, but as I mentioned, we must do more than equip our law enforcement officials with the tools they need in order to collect evidence and hopefully prevent these attacks from occurring in the future. So going forward, I hope we will come up with an agreement that any response to domestic terrorism must include providing the FBI and other law enforcement the resources and authorities to track down terrorists and take them off the streets. Fort Hood Tragedy Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, about a dozen soldiers were in an Army tactical vehicle in Fort Hood, TX, as part of a larger training exercise when they were swept off the road. Nine of them lost their lives by drowning. This was in the aftermath of heavy rain and flooding throughout Texas, and their vehicle overturned as they tried to cross a flooded creek. As I said, out of the 12 people swept out of the tactical vehicle, 9 of them drowned, but thankfully 3 survived. The nine who died came from all over America--California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Indiana, and Texas. They were also at various stages of their honorable careers of serving our country and the U.S. Army. Today, at the Spirit of Fort Hood Chapel, the Fort Hood community is gathering to remember each of them, their families, to offer prayers for their friends and family left behind, and to consider how we can honor their legacy going forward. I, of course, send my prayers and deepest condolences to those who have lost loved ones. I can't imagine their pain, but I share in their grief. Fort Hood is a resilient place. Over the years, it has experienced a number of tragedies, including the shooting by MAJ Nidal Husan, just to name another one. They have experienced tragedy before, and I hate that they have to do so again, but I know, without a doubt, that the community there that is nicknamed ``the great place'' is strong, and I hope and pray the service today is a time of hopeful remembrance for those who committed their lives to protect and defend our freedoms. I thank them for their service, and I stand ready to support the Fort Hood community in any way I can while they continue to grieve the loss of these nine heroes.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2016, at 3 p.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency's Progress in Implementing Inspector General and Government Accountability Office Recommendations.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2016, from 2:30 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Energy Tax Policy in 2016 and Beyond.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2016, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senate is demonstrating its serious commitment to supporting our military, and it is a good thing. In passing the Defense authorization bill, a bipartisan piece of legislation, we authorized funding for training and for the ever- evolving threats our troops are meeting around the world. It will also give our men and women in uniform the most up-to-date equipment, including newer and more capable aircraft and vehicles. Fortunately, the bill also authorized needed improvements at military facilities, such as construction projects in my State at Fort Hood, Joint Base San Antonio, the Red River Army Depot, and Ellington Field, and provided a much needed and well-deserved pay raise for our troops. I am glad we were able to get through this process, get this bill done, making sure our military is ready to face any potential threat around the world.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know the country is in shock and still trying to evaluate the terrorist attack in Orlando as we continue to learn from the FBI's investigation. The attack killed almost 50 people and of course left dozens injured. According to the latest reports, one of the victims was Frank Escalante from Weslaco, TX. My heart goes out to Frank, his family and friends, and all those others who lost loved ones early Sunday morning and to those living with the wounds they sustained in that terrible attack. With this act of violence and hatred, Orlando sadly joins a growing list of American cities and cities around the world changed forever by radical Islamic extremism. The jihadist, like those in San Bernardino before him, declared his allegiance to the Islamic State, and like the two Boston Marathon bombers, he was previously investigated by the FBI for connections to terrorists or known terrorist groups that carried out attacks similar to the gruesome attacks in Paris last November. Like those terrorists, the terrorist in Orlando targeted hundreds of unarmed civilians, and ISIS has used the Internet to urge lone wolves to imitate these types of attacks. In other words, not only are we concerned about people in the Middle East who have pledged allegiance to ISIS coming to the United States, we are concerned about Americans who are traveling from the United States, going there and training, and then coming back home. But the worst, and perhaps the most difficult of all to deal with, are American citizens, such as this shooter, who are radicalized in place, and of course this is the biggest challenge for the FBI. We must now come together and not only mourn and grieve those lives lost, but we need to also try and make a difference. It is time to act. The Orlando attack was not just a random act of violence. It was a calculated act of terror. By aiming his gun at innocent civilians, this jihadist opened fire on our freedoms, our way of life, and the bedrock principles that make us a diverse and vibrant democracy. We have to take these threats seriously and do everything we can to counter the ideology that provides a threat to our security, both within and without our borders. We also need an honest conversation about how to move forward on legislation that might have the effect of preventing attacks like this in the future. Some of those conversations are already happening, and I hope we will not stop until we make some progress. One place we can start is with a measure I introduced last year that would prevent known or suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms in the first place. It would not just block someone from buying a gun because of mere suspicion but would set up a process to actually detain--if based on evidence they are deemed to be a threat to society--and prevent them from not only purchasing a firearm but put them behind bars where they can't be a danger to other people. If potential terrorists are dangerous enough not to be allowed to own a gun, then I think they are dangerous enough to be taken off the streets. We shouldn't forget that a person who feels compelled to commit a terrorist act will not be stopped by just being unable to legally purchase a firearm. The 9/11 attackers used box cutters and airplanes. The Boston Marathon bombers used homemade explosives, and the terrorists in Paris and Brussels used illegal firearms and suicide vests. In the case of the Orlando attacker, it does not appear he was on a watch list at the time he purchased the weapons he used to carry out this horrific attack. In fact, the FBI had twice cleared him of being an active terror threat. We need to be clear-eyed about this if we are actually serious about stopping events like this in the future. I believe we do need to go further and do more to arm our law enforcement officers with the tools they need in order to counter terrorists and defend communities. FBI Director James Comey has outlined--with great clarity and specificity--how great a threat we face from extremists within our borders, and he made the point that the FBI has opened investigations in all of their FBI field offices around the country; that is, investigations of people being radicalized in place and doing the terrible deed that the shooter in Orlando did early Sunday morning. If the FBI Director says this is an urgent need, we ought to act. Too often the FBI and other local law enforcement officers have to operate with one hand tied behind their back because they can't access key pieces of information like encrypted data. We saw that in an attempted terrorist attack in Garland, TX, last year, on the day of the ISIS- inspired attack just northeast of Dallas. Before the two jihadists-- unfortunately traveling from Phoenix--arrived in Garland, they exchanged more than 100 different messages with terrorists overseas. Unfortunately, the FBI still doesn't have access to those communications because they are encrypted. That means law enforcement could still be missing critical information that could uncover future plots or identify more terrorists, both abroad and here at home. The Garland case is not unique. The FBI is routinely hamstrung by outdated policies that make their job of protecting the homeland more difficult. We saw another example of that in San Bernardino, CA. We have to address this major policy gap. I hope the Senate has an opportunity to consider an amendment I filed to a bill that would update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. It would help FBI agents get access to critical information faster to prevent terrorist attacks. The FBI Director has made it clear that this is his top legislative priority, and it is also supported by President Obama and his administration. I believe it is our duty, now more than ever, to do something about it and make sure the FBI has critical counterterrorism tools to be able to identify potential threats before they commit horrific acts of violence like we saw in Orlando. It is clear the threats are on our doorsteps, and we should be willing to give those on the front lines of the counterterrorism fight faster access to critical information so they can identify terrorists and thwart those attacks. I am not talking about content of communications--at least initially. We know under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that law enforcement has to demonstrate probable cause to get access to content of online communication, but there is a whole host of information that identifies email addresses, Internet Protocol addresses, and the like, that could help the FBI connect the dots. If we are expecting the FBI to connect the dots in terrorist attacks and prevent other tragedies such as that in Orlando, then we ought to give them access to all the dots. I hope this week, as we debate what the appropriate response is to dealing with these acts of mass terror, we look at the legislation I introduced last December that would notify the FBI in the event someone on a watch list attempts to purchase a firearm and then give the FBI a chance, if the evidence warrants it, to detain that individual and deny them access to the firearm. Moreover, I hope we will also provide the FBI with additional tools in order to identify those radicalized Americans in place who pose a potential threat here on the homeland. Finally, we must do more to counter the venomous ideology pedaled by ISIS by hitting them in their safe havens abroad. I am still amazed when the President refers to ISIS as the JV team. Yet ISIS seems to be the best game going for terrorists in the Middle East. Indeed, I recently traveled with members of the Homeland Security Committee in the House to Tunisia. There have been as many as 100 Tunisians who have traveled to Libya and trained with other foreign fighters and then hope to make the short jump into Europe via Italy and then potentially commit terrorist attacks there or even travel to the United States. Many of those countries are visa waiver countries--38 different countries are visa waiver countries. If you make it into Europe through a visa waiver country, you can travel to the United States without a visa. That is a potential threat to the United States. We need to deal with ISIS seriously, which means we need a strategy to crush ISIS and prevent them from not only killing innocent civilians in the Middle East, as we saw when some 400,000 Syrians died in Syria-- Syria started out as a civil war, but now it appears to be attracting terrorists from all across the region. We need to deal with the threat of ISIS as a serious national security matter and not just as a law enforcement exercise, where we act after the fact to investigate it and then perhaps prosecute people and put them behind bars. There is nothing we can do to punish a potential terrorist for taking the lives of 49 people in Orlando, especially when they kill themselves in the attack. We ought to be about preventing those attacks and not just prosecuting the culpable once the attack is over. Earlier today we passed the national defense authorization bill and gave our military men and women in uniform the resources they need in order to combat this evil outside our borders, but what we need most of all in this fight against radical Islamic ideology is leadership from the White House, a strategy, which we are still waiting for, and a commitment to root out and destroy ISIS and its affiliates. I get the sense that the President and his national security team feel like this is something they can contain, but this is not something they can contain. Maybe they can hope to contain the people fighting in the Middle East, but of course we know what has happened there. Maybe they can hope to catch people traveling from the Middle East to the United States, but it is not 100 percent secure. We know for sure that the preeminent threat here in the homeland is people being radicalized in place through social media and obviously being instructed to kill Americans where they live. This group is growing in strength across North Africa, as I mentioned in places like Libya, which is now a failed state because of the flawed strategy that the administration had after they took out Muammar Qadhafi. It seems as though we learned nothing from Iraq or any of our other experiences in the region. Now is the time for coming together to face this enemy that seeks to upend our very way of life. This is not the time to downplay the evil that perpetuates this violence, and it is also not the time for show votes on things like gun control. This individual in Orlando, who murdered 49 people and injured so many more, had a firearms license since 2011. He was a licensed security guard. He was not on a watch list at the time he committed this horrific act. So passing some legislation dealing with people on watch lists, such as the Senator from California offered last December, would have done nothing to prevent this attack. We ought to be about finding a way to come together on a bipartisan basis to make sure this sort of travesty is not repeated over and over and over again. The only way we are going to do it is to get serious about giving the FBI the tools they need in order to fight and crush ISIS and its dangerous ideology where it resides in the Middle East. We ought to take that opportunity this week. We need to focus on the threat and how to better protect our country. I look forward to working with my colleagues in other ways, exploring other ideas they may have to prevent tragedies like Orlando, San Bernardino, and Boston from happening in the future. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I would like to pay tribute to a great American veteran, public servant, leader, and Texan, Mr. Roland ``Ken'' Towery. Ken passed away on May 4, 2016, at the age of 93. Ken personified integrity, sacrifice, and hard work as a member of the Greatest Generation. He will be sorely missed by the family he leaves behind, those whose lives he touched, and a grateful Nation. Ken was born in 1923 in Smithville, MS, but quickly moved to Texas a year later. Ken grew up on his family's farm in Willacy County. When Ken was 14, they moved to farm land on the Medina River near San Antonio. The day Ken turned 18, he enlisted in the Army. He was later asked about why he enlisted, and he said, ``I wanted to see the world and signed up asking for service as far away from home as the Army could send me.'' A few short months later, Ken sailed to the Philippines on the USS Republic. He received basic and advanced individual training on Corregidor Island in Manila Bay; he served as a crew member for the 75mm antiaircraft guns with Battery C, 60th Coast Artillery. In the initial months of America's involvement in World War II, the 60th Coast Artillery joined with the 59th Coast Artillery to defend the Bataan Peninsula, blocking the Japanese Navy from Manila Bay. Ken and his fellow soldiers fought gallantly; many, including Ken, were awarded the Purple Heart for injuries received in defense of the island. In May of 1942, the island fell to the Japanese, and Ken was captured. For the duration of World War II, Ken was a prisoner of war in Manchuria. As a POW, he worked in the MKK factory making equipment to be exported. Ken eventually acquired an extra duty serving prisoners their meals, more commonly referred to as ``slop,'' filling a role referred to as the ``chow dipper.'' Serving as a chow dipper was often a short-lived and precarious position because they were subject to fights and disagreements from prisoners who were unhappy about their meager rations. This changed when Ken became the chow dipper. He employed the lesson that his parents taught him to ``do unto others.'' He remedied disagreements by first filling his own bowl and placing it beside the serving bucket. Any man who was unsatisfied with his serving was invited to replace his serving with Ken's. This small action demonstrated Ken's dedication to fairness and firmly established his role as a leader amongst his fellow prisoners. In 1945, Ken returned home, where he faced a steep recovery from multiple parasitic diseases common amongst former prisoners of war. Additionally, Ken returned with a serious case of tuberculosis, which forced him to spend the bulk of the next decade in isolation wards of TB sanitariums. As he battled TB, Ken studied at Southwest Texas Junior College and was later admitted to Texas A&M University to study soil biology. It was during this time that Ken met his future wife, Louise Ida Cook, from Knippa, TX. After their wedding, Ken continued college until another bout with tuberculosis occurred and ended his formal education. After his hospitalization, Ken cleaned poultry houses to make a living. In 1950, the Cuero Record, Ken's local newspaper, announced they were looking for a reporter. Ken applied for the position but lacked one critical skill: the ability to use a typewriter. Louise taught Ken to type, helping him to land the job. Ken's hard work led him to investigate allegations regarding businessmen who were abusing the State's veteran's land program and State officials who chose to ignore the issue. This later became known as the Veteran's Land Scandal. As a result of his research and reporting, 20 people were indicted, and the Texas land commissioner was removed from office and imprisoned. In 1955, Ken was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for his work. Soon after, Ken, Louise, and their two children moved to Austin, where Ken worked as a political reporter for the Austin American Statesman. His insight into politics was noticed by recently elected U.S. Senator John Tower, who asked Ken to serve as his press secretary. He quickly climbed the ladder and became Senator Tower's chief of staff. After leaving Tower's staff, Ken remained influential in Republican politics for more than 20 years, during which time he managed several reelection campaigns, including Richard Nixon's 1968 campaign in Texas. Ken's political impacts extended beyond the United States. He also served the U.S. Information Agency as deputy director and assistant director. While there, he played a major behind-the-scenes role in the fight against communism and the demise of the Soviet Union. He said the years spent at USIA ``were among the most gratifying `employed' years of my life . . . I could go home at night feeling like I had struck a blow for liberty, for mankind . . . There was the feeling that our labors were directed towards the interest of the nation as a whole.'' Ken then returned to Texas, where he started a political consulting business in 1976. In 1981, President Regan appointed him to the board of directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and he served as the elected chairman of the board twice. Ken eventually returned to the newspaper business in the 1990s when he purchased three small town publications: The Floyd County Hesperian, the Lockney Beacon, and the Crosby County News-Chronicle. Of all his many accomplishments, this humble man will rest in the Texas State Cemetery beneath the headstone that reads ``The Chow Dipper.'' Ken Towery's story of perseverance, work ethic, and fortitude should inspire us all. I offer my thanks and appreciation to this great and humble man who epitomizes the American spirit.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about the visit of Prime Minister Modi of India and to speak about an amendment I have, but listening to the Senator from Washington, I have to express my sense of wonder and amazement at our Democratic colleagues for whom no amount of money, no growth in the size of government is too much. While I am certainly sympathetic to the amendment by the Senator from Arizona which would increase defense spending at a time when there is a greater array and a greater diversity of threats to our country than Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has said he has seen in his 50-year career, the idea that because we want to take care of the No. 1 priority of the Federal Government, which is national security and self-defense, we have to somehow use that to leverage more spending in other areas that are nondefense-related is simply unacceptable, particularly at a time when our national debt is $19 trillion. The other day, I happened to be speaking to a young woman who said: Well, what would you tell me to tell my peers? She must have been--who knows how old she was--in her early twenties. She said: What would you tell me to tell my peers about politics and why they should care and why they should be involved? I told her: Well, if I were you, I would be angry. I would be mad. Your generation should be angry with my generation because what we have done is spent a bunch of money we did not have, and we have simply passed the debt and the bill off to your generation. It is not just the $19 trillion in debt, it is also the pathway to Social Security and Medicare, the promises we made to our seniors for a secure late-in-life lifestyle that simply can't be kept unless we support and reform Social Security and make it sustainable for future generations. So this is not the main reason I came to the floor to speak today, but I just have to express my own sense of wonder and amazement at our Democratic colleagues who want to continue to spend money we don't have because they know that if you end up spending this money they are asking for, it is just going to be added to the bill that is going to be paid for by the next generation, people like these young folks down here who are pages. That is, frankly, immoral, and it is not acceptable. Visit by the Prime Minister of India Mr. President, the main reason I came here to speak--today was really a historic day in Washington, DC, and in the relationship between the Government of the Republic of India and the United States of America. Like many of my colleagues, I had a chance to listen to Prime Minister Modi speak to a joint meeting of Congress this morning over in the House of Representatives. I was reminded of how far our two countries have come in such a relatively short period of time. My first visit to India was about 10 years ago. I had been encouraged to go because of some of my constituents back in Dallas, TX, who started the Dallas Indo-American Chamber of Commerce. We actually have a large Indian-American community in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area and also in Houston. Around the State of Texas, we probably have some 250,000 to 300,000 Indian Americans--part of the diaspora Prime Minister Modi talked about before and of which he said he was particularly proud and which binds our two countries together. When I came back from my trip to India, at the same request of the same constituent--he encouraged us to create a U.S. Senate India caucus, knowing that our two countries had a lot more work to do together. I am happy to say that 10 years ago, when Secretary Clinton was Senator Clinton, she and I cofounded the U.S.-India caucus. Later on, Chris Dodd--after Senator Clinton became Secretary Clinton--and then after Senator Chris Dodd left, Senator Mark Warner is my current cochair. We have about 30-some-odd members of this U.S.-India caucus, which demonstrates again the acknowledgment of how important this relationship has become. I am grateful for the concrete manifestation--the evidence of that relationship, things like the fact that, as Prime Minister Modi said, India joins the United States in more joint military exercises than any other country. We also have a robust civil nuclear agreement that allows for the exchange of critical information and technology. This has been a long time in coming. I think it was 2008 when the Bush administration advocated for this civil nuclear agreement which now, apparently, is coming to fruition. I noticed that President Obama and Prime Minister Modi announced the construction plans for a number of nuclear powerplants in India. India is a vast country--I think he mentioned 1 \1/4\ billion people. Many of them simply don't have electricity and live very impoverished lives. So it is an acknowledgment of our close- knit relationship but also of the need that India has, in order to advance and lift its own people to better living conditions, to have access to the electricity that is going to become available once these nuclear powerplants are constructed. Of course, our economies continue to rely upon each other increasingly for trade and investment. As more and more American-made goods or American agricultural products are sold to India--with the rising middle class, there are going to be more and more people purchasing those goods and services. Of course, that is going to help improve jobs here in the United States, as well as the quality of life there. Perhaps most importantly, we share growing cultural ties. Fast- forward to today. When Prime Minister Modi spoke today, he talked about his vision for his country's future, including deepening and broadening the relationship with the United States. That is a very welcome statement by the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, over the last few years--7 or 8 years of the Obama administration, many of our friends and allies around the world have questioned our commitment to those friendships and these alliances, and, conversely, many of our adversaries have become emboldened when they see America retreating from its engagement with the rest of the world. We do not need American boots on the ground around the globe, but we do need American leadership around the world. There is no other country with benign intent like the United States that can fill that leadership void. So I was glad to hear Prime Minister Modi talking about the importance of it. I hope we all respond appropriately. Of course, this is important not just today, but it will become increasingly important in the 21st century. The safety and stability of the Asia-Pacific region in particular will depend more and more on the safety and stability of India. Here in the Senate, we have had ample opportunity to work with our friends from India in order to guarantee that goal. There are a couple of pieces of legislation I have cosponsored with Senator Warner, my cochair of the U.S.-India caucus, that will bolster our ties with India. The first would help bring India into an existing trade structure, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, or APEC. It would direct the Department of State to develop a strategy to facilitate India's membership status in this organization, and it would urge APEC nations to support India's membership. As the world continues to become more interconnected through trade, we need to make sure like-minded countries with economic might, such as India, have a seat at the table. Of course, it is a truism that countries that do business together and trade together are much less likely to engage in some conflict against each other. So trade is good for national security and internal security as well, not just for the economy. The second bill I have introduced will help cement India's status as a major partner of the United States. It would strengthen our defense and technology ties and also make sure that India is equipped to handle the myriad threats coming its way. The truth is that India is at risk for many of the same sort of threats that the United States is. This morning, Prime Minister Modi mentioned the cyber threat. Certainly that is true, but we know India is a target for international terrorist attacks. Indeed, the Prime Minister mentioned the terrible attacks that occurred in Mumbai not that many years ago, when terrorists came in and killed a bunch of tourists there in Mumbai or Bombay. I am proud to cosponsor an amendment to the Defense authorization bill filed by the junior Senator from Alaska. This amendment would encourage greater military cooperation with India. Even though it is at an alltime high, it could certainly be improved through more joint military operations and officer exchanges. This is really an incredible source of American diplomatic power and strength, particularly in our military-to-military relationship. I can't tell you how many times I have been to countries around the world, the way I was, for example, in Cairo, Egypt, sitting there talking to the President of Egypt, President Sisi, who was talking about his military training here in the United States, in San Antonio, TX, my hometown. Of course I had to ask him how he likes the Tex-Mex, Mexican food. He said it was a little too spicy for him. The point is that these military-to-military exchanges with countries like India and Egypt and others are a great opportunity for us to establish friendships and connections, and people who invariably--and I am sure nobody dreamed that then-Military Officer Sisi would become the President of Egypt, but he rose in that leadership position and now is the leader of that large country of some 92 million people. So those military-to-military relationships, those joint military exercises with countries like India are very important. Let me close on the Prime Minister's comments this morning by thanking him publicly. It speaks volumes to his commitment to further the U.S.-India relationship. I look forward to continuing to play a small part in that effort through the work of the Senate India caucus. As Prime Minister Modi's visit illustrates, the United States cannot afford to ignore our friends and those who share common values, as Prime Minister Modi spoke. The world is simply too unstable and too dangerous. Plus, it is just plain stupid not to maintain a good relationship with your friends and allies and people who share similar values. But we also have to look at the other side of the coin, and that is to push back on our adversaries. And as I said, unfortunately, over his 8 years in the White House, the President has seemed somewhat detached from both of those--either encouraging stronger relationships with our friends and allies by demonstrating that we have their back and that we can be trusted or by pushing back on our adversaries when they take aggressive action. As I mentioned earlier this week, his first Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton, regularly lacked the ability to call a spade a speed, particularly with regard to challenges like our enemy in North Korea. Not long ago--I guess it was in August of last year--I had a chance to visit with Admiral Harris, the four-star head of Pacific Command. When we asked him to list the danger spots in the world that keep him awake at night, he mentioned North Korea as the No. 1 threat. Of course, some of that may be the proximity of his command there in Hawaii. But the fact is, North Korea is ruled by a dangerous dictator who has nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, which is a dangerous mix. Of course, unfortunately, under Secretary Clinton's watch and President Obama's watch, this has gotten nothing but worse. As we continue to consider the National Defense Authorization Act, we do have a chance to take up some of the slack, though. We are not without tools here in the Congress to fill in some of the gaps and to correct some of the misguided foreign policy prescriptions of the White House. One way we can do that is by supporting an amendment I have filed that will help us hold Iran accountable for its recent hostile actions against U.S. sailors. We all remember that last January, two Navy riverine boats with 10 American sailors on board made headlines around the world when they strayed into Iranian waters. They were taken captive by members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps after being forced at gunpoint to surrender. The sailors were blindfolded. They were hauled back to Iranian soil. They were interrogated and detained. The IRGC henchmen documented the event at almost every step along the way, quickly broadcasting those videos and photos of the captured sailors among state-run media outlets. This is not in line with international norms. This is not the way we would treat a foreign country's navy if the same thing happened, and the Geneva Convention makes clear that when military forces from one country detain military forces of another those prisoners are to be protected from public displays of humiliation, not to be used for propaganda purposes, which is what the American sailors were used for. Something called the doctrine of innocent passage--a concept of what is known as customary international law--provides that all vessels have the right of travel through another country's territorial waters to get from point A to point B swiftly. It is pretty apparent that Iran violated our sailors' right to innocent passage, but we haven't heard a peep out of the White House. Instead, the administration has patted itself on the back and claimed their bad Iran deal somehow brought these sailors home safely. They claim that somehow the enhanced credibility they had from the misguided Iran nuclear deal somehow gave them a seat at the table and an ability to negotiate the release of our own sailors from Iran. This is absolutely ridiculous, and it ignores the crux of the problem. These sailors shouldn't have been taken captive in the first place. While the President may leave this kind of aggression unanswered, we don't have to. My amendment would require the President to answer two simple questions: Did Iran's hostile actions in January violate international law? And were any Federal funds paid to the Iranian regime to effect the release of our sailors? In other words, did the Obama administration pay ransom to bring them home? I think the American people, certainly our taxpayers, have a right to know whether the Obama administration used their hard-earned tax dollars to pay ransom to a rogue regime like Iran's. If the administration does find that Iran violated international law, sanctions on those Iranians responsible would be triggered under my amendment. It is absolutely imperative we not turn a blind eye to aggression by the world's thugs, tyrants, and renegades, which is, unfortunately, what we seem to do too often. We need to hold Tehran accountable in some way. Since the President, so far, has refused to do that on his own, it is incumbent on Congress to lead on this issue, and my amendment is a good start. I am hopeful my colleagues will support it so Iran knows, even if it doesn't have to answer to the President of the United States, it will have to answer to the American people through their elected representatives in Congress. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 7:30 p.m. this evening, the Chair lay before the Senate the House message accompanying H.R. 2577; that Senator McConnell or his designee be recognized to make a motion that the Senate disagree to the amendment of the House, agree to the request by the House for a conference, and authorize the Presiding Officer to appoint conferees; further, that Senator McConnell or his designee be recognized to offer a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to go to conference and that once a cloture motion is offered, all time be yielded back and the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to go to conference; further, that if the motion to go to conference is agreed to, that Senator Nelson or his designee be recognized to offer a motion to instruct conferees and Senator Sullivan or his designee be recognized to offer a motion to instruct conferees and that the Senate vote with no intervening action or debate on the motions to instruct conferees in the order listed and that both motions require 60 affirmative votes for adoption; finally, that there be no further motions to instruct in order and that there be 4 minutes, equally divided, prior to each vote on the motions to instruct.