John Cornyn

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

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.

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. CORNYN. Mr. President, earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution convened a hearing on a piece of legislation I introduced with several of my colleagues called the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act, or the HEAR Act. This bill is long overdue, and like most pieces of good legislation, it is pretty straightforward. During the Holocaust, Nazis regularly confiscated private property, including artwork, adding one more offense to their devastating reign. Today, the day after the anniversary of D-day and decades after World War II ended, there are still families who haven't been able to get their stolen artwork or family heirlooms back. The HEAR Act will support these victims by giving them a chance to have their claims decided on the merits in a court of law and hopefully facilitate the return of artwork stolen by Nazis to their rightful owners. That is why we called the hearing ``Reuniting Victims with Their Lost Heritage.'' It is true that Hitler's final solution in World War II was not just the extermination of the Jewish people but erasing their culture. This was part of the overall plan in Hitler's final solution. This legislation will help those who had vital pieces of their family and cultural heritage stolen to find justice. This legislation is also consistent with our country's diplomatic efforts and longstanding congressional policy. I am grateful to my colleague from Texas, Senator Cruz, as well as the senior Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, and Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, for joining me in introducing this bipartisan piece of legislation. I hope the Senate Judiciary Committee will mark this up soon and the full Chamber will consider it soon. Mr. President, separately, as we continue our work on the Defense authorization bill, I want to talk for a moment about how important that is. Yesterday I spent some time talking about the threats not only to our troops overseas who are in harm's way but threats that those of us here at home are experiencing as a result of a more diversified array of threats than we have ever seen in the last 50 years. I say ``50 years'' because the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, has served in the intelligence community for 50 years, and that is what he said--we have a more diverse array of threats today than he has seen in his whole 50-year career. That includes here at home because it is not just people traveling from the Middle East to the United States or people coming from the United States over to the Middle East training and then coming back. It is also about homegrown terrorists--people who are inspired by the use of social media and instructed to take up arms where they are and kill innocent people in the United States and, unfortunately, as we have seen in Europe as well. As we think about the legacy of this President and his administration when it comes to foreign policy, I am reminded of the comments by former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, commenting on another Democratic President's foreign policy. When he was asked, he candidly admitted and said: I can't think of a single place in the world where the United States is better off or held in higher esteem than it was before this administration. He called the impact of President Obama's foreign policy minimal. I would suggest that is awfully generous, if you look around the world, the threats of a nuclear-armed North Korea, which has intercontinental ballistic missiles it has tested in creating an unstable environment there with our ally and friend to the south, South Korea, if you look at what is happening in Europe as the newly emboldened Putin has invaded Crimea and Ukraine with very little consequences associated with it. I have said it before and I will say it again, weakness is a provocation. Weakness is a provocation to the world's bullies, thugs, and tyrants, and that is what we see in spades. In the Middle East, President Obama talked about a red line in Syria when chemical weapons were used, but then when Bashar al-Assad saw that there was no real followthrough on that, it was a hollow threat and indeed he just kept coming, barrel-bombing innocent civilians in a civil war which has now taken perhaps 400,000 lives. Then, we have seen it in the South China Sea, where China, newly emboldened, is literally building islands in the middle of the South China Sea--one of the most important sealanes to international commerce and trade in Asia. I will quote on North Korea again. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said: ``We're within an inch of war almost every day in that part of the world,'' talking about Asia, with the threat of China in the South China Sea, North Korea. As far as North Korean aggression is concerned, this administration has basically done nothing to counter that aggression. Under the President's watch, this regime has grown even more hostile and more dangerous because it is so unstable. In fact, when she was Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton testified in her confirmation hearing that her goal was ``to end the North Korean nuclear program.'' That is what Secretary Clinton said. Her goal was to end the North Korean nuclear program. She even promised to embark upon a very aggressive effort to that effect. We know what happened. Instead, she adopted what was later euphemistically called strategic patience. That is just another way of saying doing nothing. In other words, this more laid-back approach is simply lost on tyrants like we see in North Korea, and it certainly didn't punish the North Korean leadership for its hostilities. We can't continue down the reckless path of ignoring challenges around the world or retreating where people are looking for American leadership. That is why it is so critical that we demonstrate our commitment to our men and women in uniform by passing this important Defense authorization bill this week. We have an all-volunteer military, and that is a good thing. We have many patriots who join the military, train, and then are deployed all around the world, as directed by the Commander in Chief, but the idea that we would not follow through on our commitment to make sure they have the resources they need is simply unthinkable. I hope we will continue to make progress on the Defense authorization bill and make sure we provide the resources, equipment, and authorization they need in order to defend our country. Let's get the NDAA, the Defense authorization bill, done this week. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, on a happier note, during this last week, we had the occasion to celebrate Memorial Day, a day of remembrance. I know many of us had a chance to spend time with true American heroes--the veterans, the Active-Duty military members and their families--to remember the fallen on Memorial Day. I had a particularly delightful occasion this Memorial Day to spend time with about 115 high school graduates from across Texas as part of a sendoff ceremony as they prepare to head to our Nation's military academies. We have been doing this every year for 10 years. As I always tell people: If you are a little down, if you are in a bad mood or feeling a little depressed, all you need to do is be around these wonderful young men and women who are really mature beyond their years and who aspire not only to attend our Nation's service academies but to be the next generation of military leaders. They truly are the best and the brightest. It was also great to provide an occasion for these young people and their families to be there and hear from inspirational leaders such as COL Bruce Crandall, a Medal of Honor winner from the Vietnam war. So in remembering this last week the service of so many people in defense of our Nation and these young people who I just mentioned on Memorial Day and our academy sendoff, it is appropriate that we return to the Senate this week to finish the national defense authorization bill, legislation that will provide our military men and women with the resources they need in order to protect and defend our country. This is an absolutely critical piece of legislation and one that Congress has passed each year for some 50 years-plus. If anyone doubts that, all they need to do is ask Chairman McCain because he will remind us every chance he gets that this is must-pass-every-year legislation and something that has become a tradition--a good tradition--for the Senate. This bill was passed out of the Armed Services Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support. Not a single Democrat voted against the legislation, and before Memorial Day, the Senate voted unanimously to move this legislation forward--98 yes and 0 no votes. Despite this being a clear bipartisan priority, we have been stuck and mired down for no real reason, frankly, because of objections from the other side of the aisle. The minority leader has chosen to use every tactic and every tool available to him to slow this down. Frankly, this is not acceptable. The Defense authorization bill provides critical resources to our military. It will give our men and women in uniform a modest pay raise and support critical training and equipment modernization efforts. And it ensures that future generations of military leaders have the support they need. I don't know what happened at Fort Hood when these nine soldiers drowned, but I hope it doesn't have anything to do with their lack of adequate training under these circumstances. What we need to do as part of our duty in the Senate is to get our work done and to pass the Defense authorization bill so there is not even a suspicion or hint of lack of adequate training or preparation by our military members that leads to tragedy. At a time when we face instability at every turn and our military is confronting evolving and constant threats, political posturing is not appropriate. In fact, it is dangerous. Unfortunately, this is a product of misguided foreign policy choices made by this administration over the last 8 years. It has put our country and our military at greater risk. Our enemies have become emboldened and our allies' confidence has been shaken. Instead of recognizing the growing threats our military men and women face every day, the President tries to diminish them, calling ISIS the ``JV team.'' This is a terrorist group that continues its reign of violence across Iraq and Syria and continues to grow in strength across North Africa. Words matter. When President Obama and former Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton, refused to attribute terrorism to radical Islam, it sent a message. And when the Obama administration and its allies ignore the reality of the enemy we are facing, our men and women in uniform are at greater risk of not having the full resources they need in order to defend U.S. interests at home and abroad. A few weeks ago, I had the chance to visit with U.S. soldiers in the Middle East and to get a good glimpse of the reality on the ground that the administration seems to be lacking. I heard firsthand about the threats they face every day from ISIS-affiliated groups. That danger is growing, not receding. There is no doubt in my mind that this growing ISIS presence correlates with gaps in our foreign policy under the Obama administration. This is particularly clear in Libya, where the Obama administration's failure in 2011 left a gaping hole of power--another failed state in the Middle East, which, as we have seen before, becomes a power vacuum that attracts foreign fighters and other people who want to use that to leap into Europe and commit acts of terror, either there or in the United States. After Secretary Clinton pushed to remove Muammar Qadhafi, she prematurely heralded this intervention as her signature achievement as Secretary of State. This is something President Obama now admits was a mistake. She calls it her signature achievement as Secretary of State. Yet the vacuum created by the United States' retreating in the region has only led to more chaos, and the ISIS fighters and recruiters have quickly filled the space, as I said a moment ago. The Financial Times even called it ``a mess no one should think will be resolved by the current UN-backed peace process.'' This chaos doesn't just give terrorism a foothold; it provides a strategic launch point for terrorist attacks, directly across the Mediterranean from Europe. In 2011, when the Obama administration, lacking any coherent, long- term strategy, decided to lead from behind in Libya, I strongly opposed that decision. While I can't say the same for others I have served with in the Senate, I have been proud to vote against premature troop withdrawals from volatile regions, as in Iraq, following the surge, which the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and so many others said was our one last chance in Iraq. To see us now fighting even as trainers and advisers in places such as Fallujah and Ramadi and other places where we have lost young lives to liberate--to see those now squandered by a premature exit from Iraq due to the administration's failure to get a security Status of Forces Agreement is just heartbreaking. We know so many did oppose the surge, including then-candidate Obama, but the fact is, it paid off. Now we see all too clearly the consequences of precipitous withdrawal--the squandering of hard-earned progress achieved by the surge. Of course, Secretary Clinton defended President Obama's decision to remove U.S. troops before the region could be stabilized. In fact, when asked about the potential threat of civil war in Iraq by exiting too early, Secretary Clinton simply said, ``Well, let's find out.'' Well, we found out, after all. Foreign policy isn't something we just find out about or make up as we go along. It requires thoughtful planning and purposeful, intentional action. Of course, Syria is another case study of what can happen when the White House refuses to act decisively and proactively against our adversaries. Unfortunately, when red lines are crossed with no consequences and when groups like ISIS aren't treated as the serious threat they are, terrorism can make its way onto U.S. soil. Just consider the attacks in San Bernardino or the multiple attacks on our allies in Europe. Unfortunately, as groups such as ISIS are getting stronger, our friends around the world are increasingly getting concerned that the United States doesn't have their backs. The White House prioritized its courtship with Iran, the No. 1 state sponsor of global terrorism, while choosing to ignore our friends and allies in the region. Turning its back on Israel to give Iran billions of dollars in sanctions relief was a hallmark of President Obama's tenure in the Oval Office, and Secretary Clinton said that she was proud to play a part in crafting that terrible nuclear deal. This simply is not good foreign policy. Why should we choose to reward those who have harmed us or threatened us while ignoring our oldest and strongest relationships? The result is what we would pretty much expect: an Iran that is ascendant in the Middle East and growing in belligerence with a nuclear program largely intact. Our actions do speak louder than words, and right now our friends in the Middle East and around the world are losing faith in their relationship with the United States. This is simply a product of failed foreign policy under the Obama-Clinton leadership. I think it is telling that when former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, was asked about President Obama's policies on the world stage, he said, ``I can't think of many nations in the world where we have a better relationship now than we did when he took over.'' This is President Carter on President Obama's foreign relations. He went on to go through a list of countries as examples of where, in his words, ``the United States' influence and prestige and respect in the world is probably lower now than it was six or seven years ago.'' On that point, I agree with President Carter. The foreign policy of this administration is nothing to be proud of. Our job now in the Senate is to reassure our allies that the military might of the United States has not fallen by the wayside. One way we can do that is by ensuring our military has the resources and funding necessary to remain a strong emblem of American strength for the rest of the watching world. After delays and obstruction from our friends on the other side of the aisle, I hope we can finally complete our work this week on the Defense authorization bill under the able leadership of Chairman McCain. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, anybody who has been watching the national news--and particularly the weather--knows we have been having some serious flooding back home in Texas. Tragically, we lost nine soldiers from Fort Hood in a very unfortunate drowning incident as part of that flooding. These soldiers were in the midst of a training mission when their vehicle got stuck in a flooded creek. I know I speak for a lot of people when I say my prayers and condolences are with the Fort Hood family and the families of these lost soldiers. I know from experience that the Fort Hood community is a resilient one and, unfortunately, has seen more than its fair share of tragedy in recent years. But I also know the community there in Killeen, along with the entire State and Nation, will continue to offer support for our men and women in uniform, and particularly for those who have lost loved ones and those who are recovering in the days ahead. Amidst the sad news, I have been continually thankful for the hard work and dedication of our first responders, who have devoted their lives to saving others. It is at times like these, when they rise to the occasion, that I am particularly grateful for their service. As you might expect, my staff and I are in close contact with local officials across the State of Texas in the more than 30 counties where Governor Abbott has declared a disaster. We will be working with the Governor as they prepare to assess the damage on the ground and determine what sort of Federal resources are necessary to help people rebuild. Should Governor Abbott request a formal Federal declaration of disaster for the affected counties, I intend to do everything I can to help get such a request granted and to make sure these Texans have what they need to recover as quickly as possible.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, sometimes I feel like our Democratic colleagues will not take yes for an answer. As the distinguished Senator from Washington knows, we have passed a $1.1 billion appropriation to combat the Zika virus. It is something we all agree on, on a bipartisan basis. What the Senator from Washington objects to is the fact that it happens to be attached to another appropriations bill, but the process is that now gets reconciled with the bill passed by the House and then sent to the President. The good news is, there is already $580 million in unexpended Ebola funds that can be used as a downpayment to deal with the Zika virus. The Presiding Officer and I have come from States where the mosquito which carries the Zika virus is present. We all appreciate the seriousness of this, and we are determined to act on a bipartisan basis. The Senator from Washington knows that, but that doesn't stop her and her colleagues from coming to the floor and making demands that we do this instantaneously. Mr. President, to give you a sense of what is going on, we have been trying to get our Democratic colleagues to allow us to pass the Defense authorization bill all week. What we have been told is, no, they need more time to review it. Every Democrat in the Armed Services Committee voted for the Defense authorization bill. It has been posted online for some time now. Anybody who cares about what is in the bill has had plenty of time to read it. Even though the Senate voted unanimously yesterday to proceed to the legislation--which is not a word you hear often around here, ``unanimous''--the bill has been stopped in its tracks by our Democratic colleagues. It is shameful because this is our primary vehicle to make sure our men and women in the military get the resources and equipment they need in order to defend the country. That is why Congress has been able to pass a defense authorization bill every year for 50 years-plus. Taking care of our national defense is our No. 1 job in the Federal Government, but the Democratic leader and his colleagues, apparently with their complicity, have been doing everything they can to slow down this legislation. They know we are coming up on a weeklong Memorial Day recess, so they have delayed it another week before we can take it up when we return. This also gives our men and women in uniform a pay raise, but apparently they are being used once again as a political pawn or football. It is shameful, and it is unnecessary. Somebody said: Well, it is just politics. It is one of the reasons the American people look with such disdain at what happens in Washington these days because these sorts of things--politics, partisanship--get put ahead of our duty to protect those who defend the Nation. We will have a vote later on today to get on the bill. I know Senator McCain, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, is eager to get on this bill, to deal with the amendments. The majority leader has said the week we come back, we will not leave until we complete our work on the Defense authorization bill. I think one of the reasons our friends across the aisle are dragging their feet on this legislation is because they are getting a little worried at the contrast between the productiveness of the 114th Congress compared to the 113th Congress when they were in charge. We know what happened then, after a disastrous election, which many incumbent Democrats lost the election because they didn't have anything to point to as a record of accomplishment because of the failed strategy of the then-majority leader from Nevada. Even Senators in the majority party didn't have records of success they could point to, to commend them to the voters for their own reelection. It was a devastating loss. The majority became the minority, and new management was put in charge. Senator McConnell, the majority leader, said he thinks it is important for the Senate to return to its regular role, considering and building consensus to pass bipartisan legislation, and that is exactly what we have done. Ironically, many of our Democratic friends, who are now in the minority, have had a greater opportunity to participate in passing legislation as Members of the minority more so than they did when they were in the majority, essentially when Senator Reid shut down the U.S. Senate. We have seen a productive Senate this year and last, notwithstanding the efforts to shut down the Defense authorization bill. For example, last week the Senate passed three bills. It passed an appropriations bill, it passed the POLICE Act--to make sure our law enforcement officials get the training they need to, to deal with active shooter training--and we passed a bill called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. They all had strong bipartisan support. That last bill is making sure families who lost loved ones in 9/11 get justice--the justice they deserve, wherever the facts may lead. The bottom line is, we are doing our dead-level best, despite the dead weight of the other side, on occasion--such as the Defense authorization bill--to stop us from making progress. I think it is pretty clear what is going on, so I will not dwell on that any longer, but my response to them is to simply stop playing politics with our men and women in uniform and drop the stall tactics. It is blatant, it is obvious to everyone with eyes in their head, and it is absolutely shameful. Coast Act Mr. President, in less than a week, hurricane season will be upon us. The Presiding Officer knows that well, coming from Florida. Residents along the gulf coast will be preparing for all that a major storm might bring, including flooding, storm surges, and high winds. The hundreds of miles of Texas coast and the State's location along the Gulf of Mexico make it particularly vulnerable to hurricanes and storms. That would be Texas. Because the area is so densely populated--Houston, TX, for example, right there in the middle of the Texas gulf coast--and includes one of our Nation's busiest ports and energy hubs, the potential for major damage along the Texas coast could have significant ramifications, not just for the region but for the rest of the country as well. When Hurricane Ike made landfall in 2008, we got a glimpse of how bad it could be. The storm caused a tremendous amount of damage as it made its way through the Caribbean, from Haiti to the Dominican Republic and Cuba. Storm surges in parts of Texas were estimated to be as high as 20 feet. Ike was the second costliest U.S. hurricane on record, causing billions of dollars' worth of damage. Sadly, it took the lives of dozens across the Caribbean and the United States. As the hurricane season gets underway, I know many Texans have been reminded of that terrible storm and many worry about the potential damage another big storm coming through our coastline would bring. It is not a question of if, it is a matter of when that is going to happen. We need to make sure we are doing what we can to protect those on the coast and to protect our economy from the next Hurricane Ike. I have been encouraged to see many efforts underway at the State and local level in Texas on how to develop the best plan to approach the problem. Several groups in the State are currently studying the coastline and determining where Texas is most defenseless against a major storm. In Congress, I have joined with other members of the Texas delegation to authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assess the vulnerabilities and to propose how we can best mitigate future damage, but there is room to do more because we know this process is simply too slow. It is not as fast as it needs to be, which is why I introduced something I call the COAST Act, which stands for the Corps' Obligation to Assist in Safeguarding Texas. It is pretty straightforward. This legislation would require the Corps of Engineers to use the data in other studies that are sound science and already completed for their planning at the State and local level. In that way, the Corps of Engineers is not just duplicating efforts and burning the clock when we can't afford to do that. So we can speed up the process so the Texas coast can get the protection it needs sooner. It would also let the final recommendations of the Corps proceed without going through numerous and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. In other words, once the Corps determines the best course of action to keep Texans on the coast safe, they will not have to wait for another congressional approval to authorize it. The COAST Act is a lesson in streamlining the Federal Government--something we could use more of--so that folks who may be in harm's way can get what they need faster. I want to particularly express my appreciation to Congressman Randy Weber on the other side of the Capitol, who has introduced a similar bill as well. I hope that as we prepare for the upcoming hurricane season, we can get this legislation passed. Calling for Appointment of a Special Counsel Mr. President, on one final matter, yesterday the inspector general's office at the State Department released a 70-plus-page report telling us what many people suspected all along. That report criticized then- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private, unsecured email server while she was our Nation's top diplomat and having access to and processing highly classified information--some of our Nation's most confidential and classified secrets. Some people have wondered why recent poll numbers have not been kind to Mrs. Clinton when it comes to her trustworthiness. A Washington Post-ABC News national poll found that just 37 percent of the people who responded to that poll believe Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy, while 57 percent said they don't think she is. This is a serious problem, not just for Mrs. Clinton but for the country. There are those who wonder why people are so upset with Washington. What they see is a culture of corruption that doesn't address some of these fundamental issues. Well, time and again we have heard Secretary Clinton and her allies say that her use of a private email server was wholly consistent with State Department policy. But, of course, the report that was just released by the inspector general yesterday says otherwise and revealed a host of other inconsistencies. First, the report indicates that Clinton's email use was not in accordance with State Department standards, and, more than that, the former Secretary of State neglected to get the formal approval she needed in order to use her private server. Second, Secretary Clinton and her supporters, including the President, have maintained that her server was not a security risk, while others, such as former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, said they were confident that our Nation's adversaries--China and Russia, well known for their cyber attacks--were taking full advantage of an unsecured server and using and gaining access to classified information which was now--in the words of Representative Pompeo, who serves on the Intelligence Committee in the House--like putting intelligence on Twitter. In effect, that is what Mrs. Clinton did. But, of course, the report from the inspector general calls all of this into question and asserts that when some of Clinton's staffers raised concerns about a potential breach to the system, the relevant security officials at the State Department were not alerted. They just weren't alerted in accordance with State Department policy. Even though Secretary Clinton has maintained that she has been fully complying with every request related to an investigation of her use of the private server, the inspector general report makes clear that the Secretary and her staff refused to be interviewed. That is not cooperating with the authorities. She can't refuse to talk to the FBI, and a number of her staffers have been, and she said she will make herself available. I bet she will because she really doesn't have any choice. But to say she is cooperating with an investigation by the inspector general at the State Department and then refusing to be interviewed is just--well, let's call it what it is--a lie. Similarly, the report reveals that Secretary Clinton didn't turn over all of her work-related emails upon leaving office, like she said she did. She only did so almost 2 years after leaving, and the State Department basically had to demand it, even then we know she deleted-- she told us this-- thousands of emails before turning over those she deemed work related. I suspect the forensics experts at the FBI have been able to recover a lot of the emails that she deleted. We all know if you delete emails, they remain on the server in a digital format. The truth will come out sooner or later, but I just have to say the conduct of the former Secretary demonstrates why people just don't trust her. Of course, the recent contradictions are just outrageous and indicate that rather than cooperation, her intention has been to obstruct the public's right to know. This report underscores why I believe we need an independent investigation into this matter. I called for the appointment of a special counsel because it is clear that the Attorney General, who serves at the pleasure of President Obama, is going to have very little incentive or intention to pursue the appropriate investigation. So I have asked Attorney General Lynch to appoint a special counsel to provide some modest level of independence so the public can know that we have gotten to the bottom of this despite Secretary Clinton's denials and obfuscation and statements of untruth. We need to get to the bottom of it. It is absolutely critical that we do so. I hope Attorney General Lynch reconsiders my call for a special counsel. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank our colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma, for telling that marvelous story and offering some hope--not just talking about it but doing something about it as well. Of course, it reminds me a little bit of our recent trip to Charleston and the amazing thing that happened there after a terrible tragedy when a young man opened a gun in a church and a killed a number of innocent people who were there worshipping and who had taken him in. Just as the story told by the Senator from Oklahoma, one of the things we found when we visited Charleston later, as the Presiding Officer will recall, was the power of forgiveness. This changed the entire conversation when people in great pain, suffering an unspeakable tragedy, had the faith and the fortitude to stand and say: You hurt me, but I forgive you. It was very, very remarkable. It reminded me of that experience. What Senator Lankford was telling us about Tulsa--the Tulsa race riot-- reminded me of the similar lesson and example. There is perhaps nothing more powerful than a good example, and we saw that rising out of great hurt and great hate. I thank the Senator for telling the story and reminding me of that recent experience in Charleston. Mr. President, sometimes when I go home to Texas, my constituents tell me: I don't know how you stand it. I don't know how you stand the frustration of working in Washington and dealing with some of the politics, the unnecessary obstacles, the procedures, just the delay-- the do-nothing aspects of this job. Unfortunately, I was reminded of that again because we are here ostensibly working on a national defense authorization bill, burning daylight and wasting time when we could actually be dealing with the needs of our men and women in uniform--making sure they have the equipment, training, and the tools necessary to fight our Nation's wars and keep our Nation safe. But we are just burning hours on the clock because the Democratic leader, in his--I was going to say in his wisdom. I don't think it is in his wisdom. I think it is just an effort to delay our ability to progress with this important legislation on a bipartisan basis. This is legislation, after all, that was supported by every Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. They know what is in the bill. It has been posted for a long time. Anybody who really cared enough to find out could have found out what was in this bill. We could be having a debate and a discussion about how we can improve it, about how we can reconcile the House and Senate versions and get it to President Obama for his signature so our troops don't have to wonder, so they don't have to wait, and so they don't have to worry about whether we care enough to get our work done to support them. Despite all the foot dragging we have seen and the frustrations that are just inherent in this job--because things never happen as quickly as any of us would like, and I think certainly that adds to the public frustration--we actually have been getting some things done around here. It is just that we have had to grind them out and take a long time do them. But I know the majority leader, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, is determined to complete this legislation, and we will. In Senator McCain, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, we couldn't have a more forceful advocate for the men and women in uniform and the veterans. Of course, he was a great example of that true American hero--a former prisoner of war himself. You can tell how passionately he feels about doing our duty by our troops. I did want to mention a few things I will be offering by way of amendments that I think will help make America safer and take some small steps toward correcting some of the foreign policy mistakes we have seen from this administration over the last few years. The first two amendments I intend to offer focus on countering the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism; that is, the nation of Iran. The first amendment I have specifically targets an airline called Mahan Air, which is that country's largest commercial airline--the largest commercial airline and the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. This airline has repeatedly played a role in exporting Iran's terrorism. It supports the efforts of the Quds Force, an elite fighting unit of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards, and supports Hezbollah as well. We might as well call Mahan Air ``Terrorist Airways.'' That might be a more appropriate name. Because of its role in ferrying Iranian personnel and weapons throughout the region in the Middle East, it plays a big hand in undercutting the interests of the United States and our ally Israel. Of course, everywhere you turn, Iran is up to some sort of mischief-- in Syria, obviously, with their efforts to shore up the corrupt and brutal regime of Bashar al-Assad, its support of Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations. It seems like everywhere you turn, they are up to no good. And, of course, there is the nuclear agreement, which I think was enormously misguided, and they have thumbed their noses at the very basic elements of that agreement, demonstrating they have really no interest in complying with it. And the United States, in turn--well, actually the administration; because it is not a treaty, it doesn't bind future Presidents--but we have essentially, in the words of Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, not contained or prevented Iran from gaining nuclear weapons; we have essentially paved the pathway. Today, Mahan Air is working to add more international airports to its flights, including several in Europe. Given the links to terrorist activity, we have to consider the potential security risks to Americans and others who fly in and out of airports where Mahan aircraft may land. This amendment would require the Department of Homeland Security to compile and make public a list of airports where Mahan Air flies, and it would require the Department of Homeland Security to assess what added security measures should be imposed on flights to the United States that may be coming from an airport used by Mahan Air. I recently had the chance--and I have spoken about this--to go to Cairo with the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, my friend Michael McCaul of Texas. One of the things we looked at was airport security because there are flights that currently exist between Cairo and JFK Airport in New York. It is my understanding there are also flights planned from Cairo to Reagan National here in the District of Columbia. Following the explosion on a Russian plane out of Sharm el-Sheikh in southern Sinai, it is pretty clear Egypt has a lot of work to do to improve its homeland security measures in both its screening of baggage and also personnel who work at airports. So you can see why people would necessarily be concerned about the action of Mahan Air and what risk that might expose innocent passengers to. I hope my colleagues will review the proposal and support it. The second amendment I have related to Iran would require President Obama to determine if Iran violated international law several months ago when it detained a number of U.S. sailors. Under bedrock rules of international law, all ships, including U.S. Navy ships, have the right to innocent passage through another nations' territorial waters. In other words, when one of our Navy's riverine boats is innocently transiting across Iranian waters and is not engaged in military activity or taking any other action that would prejudice the peace and security of Iran, it is against the law--against the law--for Iran to stop, board, and seize that vessel. Iran can't just remove our sailors from their boats and detain them in Iran because they feel like it or steal the GPS units from those boats. In addition, the Geneva Convention makes clear that Iran can't detain for no reason and exploit another nation's military servicemembers, especially not for propaganda purposes, which is clearly what they did. Iran can't force our sailors to apologize when they have done nothing wrong. Iran's Revolutionary Guards and their state-controlled media had a heyday with the videos and images of our sailors they captured and purposely humiliated. It seems very likely, based on available evidence, that they violated our sailors' rights of innocent passage and very likely the Geneva Convention itself, and I think we need the Commander in Chief to call Iran into account. This type of destabilizing and dangerous behavior by Iran cannot occur without some consequences. My amendment would require the President to determine if the rules of international law were broken and, if so, require the imposition of mandatory sanctions on Iranian personnel who were involved. A third amendment I have introduced would grant tax-free income status to U.S. troops deployed to the Sinai Peninsula. As I have mentioned before, after our trip to Cairo, we flew out to North Camp, a peacekeeping mission in the northern part of the Sinai. This is an area between the Gaza Strip and Egypt where, as part of the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, negotiated by Prime Minister Begin, President Sadat, and President Carter, this peacekeeping operation was established. It is called the Multinational Force & Observers, and it is largely made up of U.S. military, although it is led by a two-star Canadian general and a number of Colombian soldiers and others. Our troops play a strategic role in maintaining peace between Egypt and Israel right there in the northern Sinai, and their work is incredibly dangerous. Unfortunately, some Bedouin insurgents have now affiliated themselves with ISIS. They have claimed allegiance to the Islamic State and are regularly putting out improvised explosive devices, which kill Egyptian peacekeepers. By granting our troops tax-free status for their pay, we can put them on equal footing with other American troops who are deployed in other dangerous places, such as Afghanistan and Iraq and other similarly dangerous hot spots around the globe. Finally, I mentioned earlier this week that I will be submitting an amendment to support the human rights of the Vietnamese people. The President has been in Hanoi for the last couple of days, but, frankly, the conduct of the Communist regime is marked by the regular silencing of dissidents and the press and anti-democratic, heavyhanded tactics to stay in power at any cost, not to mention the denial of religious freedom. By one estimate, Vietnam is currently detaining about 100 political prisoners. Clearly, this country does not come anywhere close to sharing the values we have here in the United States, democratic values, and rather than steadily improving, I am afraid there is no sign the Vietnamese Government is working to advance more freedoms for its people. Just this last week, during the visit of President Obama, it was reported that several activists who planned on meeting with the President were detained by the Communist Party and prevented from doing so. Similarly, a BBC correspondent said that the Vietnamese Government ordered him to stop his reporting, simply silencing this reporter from the BBC. Earlier this month, the wife of a Vietnam activist testified before a subcommittee on the House Foreign Affairs Committee about her husband, a human rights lawyer, who was beaten by plainclothes officers and imprisoned. What was his crime? Well, according to the government, he was charged with ``conducting propaganda against the state.'' His wife hasn't seen or heard from him in months. While I support increased economic and security ties with Vietnam, I don't believe we should sacrifice our commitment to human rights in the process. We should not be seen as tolerating this sort of anti- democratic behavior. At the very least, we shouldn't be rewarding it with new access to arms deals by completely lifting the longtime arms embargo against Vietnam. And what did we get in exchange? Well, I think it approaches zero or nothing. My amendment would help ensure that we don't reward Vietnam for bad behavior, such as human rights abuses, when we confer upon them benefits, such as lifting the arms embargo, and that they show some respect for democratic values, religious liberties, and human rights. We have to keep in mind that the Vietnamese people in that country have no real voice because they are subjects of a Communist dictatorship. We must do more to put pressure on the regime in Hanoi to empower their own people. Cross-Border Trade and Enhancement Act Separately, Mr. President--and I see my colleague from Wyoming wants to speak, so let me conclude with this--earlier today, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed legislation I have introduced called the Cross-Border Trade and Enhancement Act, a bill that would help our ports of entry by strengthening public-private partnerships at air, land, and sea ports. In Texas, because we share a 1,200-mile common border with Mexico, we have seen upfront and close the security challenges--which we need to do much more to address--but also the benefits of bilateral trade. As a matter of fact, trade between the United States and Mexico supports about 6 million American jobs. We have seen time and time again how important these public-private partnerships are in helping to reduce wait times for the flow of commerce across the border and moving people and goods across safely and efficiently. This isn't just about convenience; this is about security and compliance with our laws, interdicting illegal drugs and other activities. This legislation would also improve staffing, in addition to modernizing the infrastructure to help better protect legitimate trade and travel and keep our economy running smoothly. I thank the chairman, Senator Ron Johnson, for his commitment to this issue and commend him for his diligent effort in leading the committee. I am glad the committee understands that the priority here is to strengthen our ports of entry at the border and across the country. I am grateful not only for the committee's support but also the bipartisan support of other cosponsors, including Senator Klobuchar, the senior Senator from Minnesota, and Senator Heller, the junior Senator from Nevada. As always, I appreciate my colleague on the House side, Henry Cuellar, for working with me on a bipartisan basis and introducing companion legislation in the House. I hope now that the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has acted, this Chamber will take up the bill soon so we can build on the success of similar programs in Texas and across the country. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I wish our Democratic colleagues would spend as much time working with us to try to solve problems as they do engaged in political theater and posturing. Mrs. Murray, the Senator from Washington, has done good work working with the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee, Senator Blunt, in coming up with a piece of legislation that funds the Zika response at $1.1 billion. That legislation has already passed the Senate. What remains to be done is the House and the Senate need to come together in a conference committee--which is the typical way where differences of approach are reconciled--to come up with a responsible piece of legislation. In the meantime, I am glad the President has taken up our suggestion initially that until this can happen, they reprogram money--$589 million--from the Ebola response that had not yet been expended and transfer that to the Zika response. I am confident that money has not been spent yet and plenty is available to deal with it while Congress does its business in an orderly sort of way. I would have to say to my friend from Washington, my State is going to be directly in the crosshairs because this mosquito is not native to Washington State but it is to the warmer parts of our country--Texas and Louisiana. Thank goodness no one so far has gotten the Zika virus from a mosquito. It is people who have traveled to South America, Puerto Rico, or elsewhere and come back to the United States, but we all agree on a bipartisan basis that this is a very serious matter and we can't waste time. There is $589 million available to deal with it now. Secondly, we are working--as we typically do--with the House to try to reconcile our differences and to do our work in a responsible sort of way. In the meantime, our Democratic colleagues are blocking legislation, like the Defense authorization bill. They are throwing obstacles in the way of our getting the Senate back to work in every way they possibly can, including this--which, I am sorry to say, is just political theater and posturing. With that, I object.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we will be voting on something known around here as the fiduciary rule, which the Senator from New Jersey just spoke on, and later we will be voting on inspection of catfish. Now, people might wonder, as significant as those two issues are, why we are not dealing with the Defense authorization bill that Senator McCain has been pressing our Democratic friends to allow us to get started with. For my money, there is simply nothing more important for the Congress to do than to make sure our men and women in uniform have the support and the resources and the training they need in order to fight our Nation's fights and win our Nation's wars. But because of the objection of the Democratic leader yesterday, here we are. I have to say to my friend, the Senator from New Jersey, talking in support of this fiduciary rule that was created by Dodd-Frank, to me, this just exemplifies this paternalism which has typified this administration when dealing with the economy. They don't actually believe consumers know how to make good choices for themselves, so they are going to force a Federal regulation and rule and a one-size-fits- all standard on the financial services industry. I have to say that I don't think it is any coincidence that our economy grew at one half of 1 percent last quarter. That is pathetic economic growth, and it is simply not fast enough for our economy to create jobs in order to allow people to work full time instead of part time and for those who have left the labor force to join the labor force and to provide for their families and pursue their dreams. But it is unfortunately typical of the regulatory approach of the Obama administration, which I think helps strangle the economy and economic recovery. Economists and many people much more knowledgeable than I have said that after the 2008 fiscal crisis, we should have seen a bounce, a V- shaped bounce. We hit bottom; we should have bounced back up. Unfortunately, we have been at a very flat recovery--if you can call it much of a recovery--since 2008, primarily because people are in doubt whether their plans for small business, medium-sized business, or large business, for that matter, will be put in political peril because of the uncertainty of the regulatory approach of the Obama administration. That is why we need to disapprove this fiduciary rule and to get the government out of the way, particularly when it comes to people who choose their own financial advisers. It is just another example of the wet blanket the regulatory approach of the Obama administration has been on the economy in general--just one small example. As I said at the outset, we should be talking about the national defense authorization bill, which passed out of the Armed Services Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support. Only three members of the Armed Services Committee voted against it. But rather than be debating that, here we are. We should be talking about and voting on the Defense authorization bill because of obviously how important it is to our country's safety and security. As I mentioned, it provides our military the funding and authorities they need in order to protect and defend us, and it ensures that our warfighters are equipped for success on the battlefield. The President's senior adviser, Ms. Valerie Jarrett, claimed recently that President Obama had ended two wars and that this was part of his legacy. I am wondering which wars she was referring to because, frankly, the world is on fire. The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, has said that never in his long career--and I think it goes back 50 years or more--in the intelligence community has he seen a more diverse and a more threatening environment. We know we have conventional threats like a newly emboldened Vladimir Putin threatening Europe and the NATO alliance there. Then we have terrorist groups like ISIS, the Islamic State, which has morphed from Al Qaeda--the radical religious ideology which has told them that in the name of their religion, they can murder innocent men, women, and children. A few weeks ago I had the chance to travel with some of my colleagues from the House side to visit some of our troops stationed in the Middle East. It was obviously an honor to visit with those serving our country so selflessly in remote parts of the world, where they are separated from their families and putting service to country above self. We had a chance to visit the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet in Bahrain and the Multinational Force & Observers, the MFO, an international peacekeeping group at the North Camp in the Sinai Peninsula. Quite a few members of the Texas National Guard served there until they ended their tour just recently. In meeting with those folks on the ground and learning more about the situation, one thing is clear: The Middle East continues to be a region racked by instability and violence at every turn. I have previously spoken about how the imprudent drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq without getting a status of forces agreement, which would have allowed a larger U.S. presence there, much as we had after the war in Germany, in Japan, and elsewhere, where we frankly have seen thriving economies and stable countries spring up after the wake of terrible wars--unfortunately, President Obama did not see that as a priority. And because of the precipitous drawdown in Iraq, a power vacuum was left. If there is one thing we should have learned on 9/11, it is that power vacuums are breeding grounds for terrorists, and that is as true today as it was back then. So now the Islamic State--the latest iteration of Islamic extremism-- has carved out a safe haven in Iraq and Syria, virtually wiping off the map the border between those two countries, and it continues to grow in north Africa and the Middle East. The terrorist group's influence in the region couldn't be clearer. As I mentioned, on the Sinai Peninsula, I had a chance to visit with some of our soldiers about the threats they face from ISIS-affiliated groups every day, including the use of improvised explosive devices by some of the groups who have now pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. Back in March, it was reported that an ISIS-linked group killed more than a dozen of Egypt's security forces in the Sinai, and unfortunately that carnage continues. There is no doubt that ISIS is continuing to work against U.S. interests and against our allies, targeting not only Egyptian forces in this instance but, at times, U.S. forces on the ground as well. Unfortunately, ISIS has taken advantage of a power vacuum left in Libya after the President led a coalition to topple Libyan strongman Muammar Qadhafi and unfortunately created another power vacuum there which continues to this day. We would have thought we would have learned something from our experience in Iraq, but apparently President Obama did not because he had no real plan for a post-Qadhafi Libya, no plan and no strategy in place on how to move forward afterward. As I said, now Libya is a failed state and a breeding ground for ISIS. In Tunisia, we actually had the chance to visit with the U.S. Ambassador to Libya. Unfortunately, as the Ambassador and his country team said, we haven't actually been to Libya. They are literally an embassy in exile in Tunisia but doing the best they can to try to figure a way forward in Libya. One thing we know for sure is that Libya plays host to an increasing number of ISIS fighters. Some even estimate that the ranks of ISIS have doubled in Libya in the past year alone. Left unchecked, this ISIS safe haven in Libya, a country which is obviously strategically located across the Mediterranean from Europe, where it is pretty easy passage up into the EU, movement around the EU and then in countries--38 countries in total have visa waiver agreements with the United States, and people can travel to the United States from those countries without a visa. But this jumping-off point in Libya to Europe and then to other places is a real threat and provides another base from which ISIS can continue to terrorize and target the United States and our friends and partners. As I mentioned, we were able to travel to Tunisia and visit with the relatively newly democratically elected President there. Tunisia touts itself as one of the rare success stories of the Arab spring--maybe the only success story--but their hold on the country is enormously fragile, primarily because the terrorist threat has killed the tourist activity that has been part of the economic lifeblood of that beautiful country right on the Mediterranean Sea in north Africa. Unfortunately, Tunisia is seeing an influx of its own citizens traveling to Libya to join ISIS, and today Tunisia remains one of the major sources of foreign fighters for this terrorist army. After its campaign of rape and genocide against the Yazidis, Christians, and Shia Muslims, ISIS continues to expand across north Africa and the Middle East, all the while working against U.S. interests, not only in the region by inciting violence and terrorist attacks but also in Europe and in places like San Bernardino, CA. Of course, our military serves in dangerous places all over the world, as do other people who bravely serve in a civilian capacity with our intelligence community and others. Today the threats extend all the way from an aggressive Russia, as I mentioned earlier, to NATO's doorstep, to an increasingly belligerent China in the South China Sea-- a topic the President, no doubt, is discussing during his visit in Hanoi--and then there are the repeated unchecked provocations of North Korea. These are all areas marked by volatility and unpredictability. Given these threats, given this danger, given this need, we would think there would be bipartisan support for doing our work here and actually debating and voting on the Defense authorization bill. The bottom line is that our military men and women must be prepared for all potential contingencies, and the Defense authorization bill is our chance here in Congress to make sure they have the training and equipment to do just that. It is pretty clear that the administration's disengagement around the world over the last 7 years has not been working, and I have been saying that for some time. But the Defense authorization bill we will move to tomorrow is an opportunity for Congress to provide for our troops to the greatest extent possible and ensure that they are ready to face all of these threats. The Defense authorization bill would authorize resources to fight ISIS and to counter Russian aggression and shore up U.S. and NATO capabilities. As we begin this debate and discussion, let's keep at the forefront of the conversation the men and women who are out there in harm's way facing these myriad of threats, separated many times from their family and their community and their friends, and let's work in good faith to get this bipartisan bill passed as soon as we can. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, shortly the Senate will pass another important piece of legislation, the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act. This is legislation that will better equip the States to track sex offenders and prevent abuse. Since the new majority took control of this Chamber, the Senate has prioritized bills that protect victims, that make our communities safer. This latest bill fits that model. For example, I was proud to introduce the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, which was signed into law by President Obama this last spring. That happened to enjoy a 99-to-0 vote in the Senate, clearly bipartisan legislation directed at helping the victims of human trafficking. I am pleased to report that this law has already begun helping those victims recover and find a path for healing. In another example, the Senate Judiciary Committee recently approved the Justice for All Reauthorization Act, legislation I introduced with our colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, that will improve the criminal justice system by helping eliminate the backlog of untested rape kits in communities throughout the country and by helping victims find justice faster. I might add that, thanks to the leadership of Chairman Grassley of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Judiciary Committee has been as active and as productive as any other time I have been in the Senate. Finally, earlier this year we joined several of our colleagues to introduce Kari's Law, another bipartisan bill that would ensure that people have the ability to directly call 911 without having to dial an extra number, which happens to be particularly important in hotel rooms and other places. Particularly if a young child picks up a phone and dials 911, as they have been instructed, it is important that they be able to get through. This is a simple change but one that will help law enforcement and emergency personnel reach those who need help as soon as possible. I hope we can move this legislation forward soon. I am proud of the work the Senate has done in these and other areas this year. I hope this afternoon we can add the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act to that list. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I know President Obama is visiting Vietnam. I want to speak briefly about that, but I also want to comment about the contribution many Vietnamese Americans are making in the United States and particularly back home in Texas. They demonstrate the vividness and the life of the pursuit of the American dream because these are some of the most accomplished people in our communities back in Texas. Many people don't realize how big of a Vietnamese community Texas has. Many are surprised when I tell them that Vietnamese is the third most commonly spoken language in Texas. Admittedly, English, even Texas English, is No. 1 and then obviously Spanish, with 38 percent of our population of Hispanic origin--but it is still a sizable, vibrant part of our State and our communities. I have been particularly impressed by the passion and drive of those from Vietnam who have now made America their home--how passionate they are about things we perhaps take for granted, such as the same freedoms we enjoy here that folks back in Vietnam do not enjoy. As a matter of fact, it is important to remember, even as President Obama is traveling to Vietnam, that Vietnam is a brutal Communist regime that continues to disregard basic human rights. Sure, our economic relationships could bear fruit--and in fact I am encouraged by that and would encourage that--but we cannot forget that, at bottom, the regime is Communist, and it disregards basic human rights. I expect a lot of the conversations the President is having with the government will focus on our common threats in the Pacific, particularly the rise and belligerence of China, particularly in the South China Sea. I am sure it will focus on the need for more robust economic relationships and perhaps the benefits of trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I agree economics and trade are important, but we can't let the prospect of greater economic ties dampen our convictions as a democratic nation to encourage greater freedoms for the Vietnamese people. Recently, Reporters Without Borders ranked Vietnam 175th out of 180 countries worldwide when it comes to freedom of the media--175th out of 180. Unfortunately, the regime does not fare any better when it comes to religious liberty either. The truth is, our two countries will never achieve the kind of close relationship that I know many in Vietnam and many in the United States aspire to until Vietnam releases all political prisoners, demonstrates basic respect for human rights, and embraces self-government ideals that we again take for granted in America. I believe that until that happens, the United States has no choice but to continue to hold Vietnam at arm's length. That means we must do all we can to put pressure on the regime to strengthen freedoms for the Vietnamese people. I am hopeful, in moving forward, the United States will do a better job of making clear that the Communist regime in Hanoi must improve its human rights record. Fortunately, we in the Congress can play a role. Earlier this year, I reintroduced a piece of legislation called the Vietnam Human Rights Sanctions Act, legislation that would impose travel restrictions and other sanctions on Vietnamese nationals who are complicit in human rights abuses against their follow people. I intend to offer this legislation, the Vietnam Human Rights Sanctions Act, as an amendment to the national defense authorization bill we will be debating this week. The United States simply must do more to support the rights of the Vietnamese people and freedom-loving people everywhere. We simply can't give a pass to the Vietnamese regime and a pass to their oppressive government because, frankly, it is a little inconvenient to bring up during the time we are talking about trade and better economic relationships. This bill is a step forward in the fight for their civil, religious, and political liberties.