John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I apologize to the Democratic leader. Apparently I wasn't able to communicate my point, which is that there is already $580 million available today to combat the Zika virus. Finally, the administration took the advice of those on this side of the aisle and said: Let's take the unused Ebola funds to fight it today while we have an orderly process by which we appropriate the money in a responsible way. I think the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, and Senator Blunt, the chairman and ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee, have done a good job of winnowing down the $1.9 billion request to the $1.1 billion which I agree is the right figure. While we have some other differences, I think the Senate is acting in a responsible and bipartisan way, which is the only way things can actually get done around here. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to congratulate our friend, the Senator from Maine, for doing a tremendous job of managing this bill. It is never easy, given the fact that an individual Senator can slow down the process or insist on their rights, which I am not disparaging at all. There comes a time in every piece of legislation where it is important for us to make sure that we invoke our rights as Senators on behalf of the people we represent. I know it takes some patience and diligence, and I admire the diligence, patience, and professionalism of our colleague from Maine on what is always a challenging piece of work, which is trying to get an appropriations bill passed. National Police Week and Police Act I wish to speak on a different topic. This is National Police Week. Earlier this week I had the chance to visit with a police officer by the name of Gregory Stevens of the Garland Police Department. For people who are not aware, Garland is a city northeast of Dallas, TX. Around this time last year, it was a site of an attempted terrorist attack. There was a display of some artwork of the prophet Muhammad that provoked a terrorist attack. Fortunately, Officer Stevens was the man in the right place at the right time when it happened. Many of us remember that fateful day last May when two armed gunmen from Phoenix, AZ--clad in body armor with automatic weapons--pulled up to the conference center and opened fire. According to media reports, the attackers were inspired by ISIS, the Islamic State. This is a real problem because these folks, like the shooters in San Bernardino, hadn't actually traveled to Syria, although the San Bernardino couple had been in Saudi Arabia and had traveled overseas--if I am not mistaken. But these people were radicalized in place by the ideology of the Islamic State. This is a big problem for the United States because, as the FBI director has commented, in every FBI field office in America, there are FBI investigations open on potential radicalization of people in place here in the United States. It doesn't take people traveling from the Middle East over here. It doesn't take people traveling from here, over there, and coming back. This is the third leg of the stool or the third prong of the threat, of people being radicalized in place. Getting back to my story, Officer Stevens responded decisively. He was able to stop the two terrorists from hurting or killing hundreds of people inside the conference center and, thankfully, he left unscathed. I asked him: What sort of weapon did you have to protect yourself against these two terrorists in body armor with automatic weapons? He said: I had a .45-caliber Glock with a 14-shot clip. He said he had to do a tactical reload, but he never fired an additional shot after he reloaded his weapon. For those of us familiar with such things, that is the mark of a real professional--somebody who is very well trained and responds as well as you could hope for. I know the people of the city of Garland and the folks in Texas are grateful to Officer Stevens for his quick response and his bravery. As I said, he saved potentially hundreds of lives and prevented injuries. I think it is appropriate during National Police Week for us to honor people like Officer Stevens by telling their stories. On Monday, President Obama presented Officer Stevens the Medal of Valor, the highest honor given to a police officer. It is a fitting tribute to the heroic actions he exhibited that day. During National Police Week, we should note that there are more than 900,000 law enforcement officers serving our country. After 9/11, we have come to talk about them as being first responders, but I am talking specifically about the law enforcement officers, not the broader category here during National Police Week. They are folks who get up every morning, kiss their families good-bye, go to work, put on a uniform, and put themselves in harm's way to protect our communities and our families. Tragically, we know that not all of them make it home at the end of the day. Last year, the United States lost 124 law enforcement officials; 12 of those officers were from the State of Texas. All of them had their individual stories, but some left behind spouses and children. I have no doubt that all of them left behind loved ones and people who care deeply about them and a community that, in their absence, misses them terribly. I am particularly proud of the men and women in my State who serve in law enforcement--not just in Texas but across the country, including here at the Nation's Capitol. Our Capitol Police do a terrific job of keeping all of us safe and not just Members of Congress but, obviously, the hundreds of thousands of tourists who visit the Capitol on an annual basis. All of the professional law enforcement officials have dedicated their lives to public safety, and we should honor them for it. There is no doubt that our Nation is a better place because of their hard work and dedication, and we all owe them a debt of gratitude. In the Senate, we need to do everything we can do to help professional law enforcement officials learn how to do their jobs as effectively and as safely possible. One simple way we could do that is by making sure they have access to the very best and latest training techniques--active shooter training, for example. I recall the situation at Fort Hood when MAJ Nidal Hasan killed 13 people and wounded many more. Two police officers in active shooter mode crashed the site, exposing themselves to danger and ultimately paralyzing Nidal Hasan. More importantly, they took him out of action and saved a lot of lives. This training they had and they exhibited with such great effect on that day is what we need to give more of our law enforcement officials access to. That is why I am glad to join my colleague, the senior Senator from Vermont, in sponsoring a piece of legislation called the Police Act--a bill that passed out of the Judiciary Committee last week. This is pretty straightforward and it is bipartisan, so it doesn't make a lot of news, but I do think it serves a useful purpose. It will allow the use of existing grant money for police training to be used for this active shooter training. I know some of that training occurs at Texas State University in San Marcos. I have been to that site and walked through some of the buildings they use for the training. It is a heart-thumping exercise to realize what law enforcement deals with when confronting an active shooter. It is really important training. We have seen terrorist attacks and sudden acts of violence in communities across the country and, thankfully, we have people like Officer Stevens who helped avoid tragedy in Garland. But we should do everything we can to help equip our law enforcement officials with the training and tools they need in order to do their jobs as effectively as possible. The Police Act would help in this effort, and it would help protect those who put their lives on the line on our behalf every day and support their efforts to guard the communities they serve. I look forward to passing this legislation soon. I can think of no better way to honor those who serve our country so well during National Police Week than to pass the Police Act, which will in some small way provide them access to the training they need in order to do their jobs better and help keep our communities safer. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am delighted to be here on the floor with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the ranking member, our colleague from Vermont, whom I have worked with on so many issues, to ask unanimous consent to take up a bill that I talked about a little earlier this morning called the POLICE Act. This bill uses existing funding to support local law enforcement but specifically to make sure funding is available for active-shooter training. For example, in San Marcos, TX, at Texas State University, they have trained 80,000 local law enforcement officials in active-shooter training. The time I remember most poignantly when this was put to good use and saved lives was at Fort Hood, TX, when MAJ Nidal Hasan stood up and killed I think about 13 people and then wounded about 30 more. There were two law enforcement officials who crashed the site, put themselves in harm's way, but thanks to the great training they had, they were able to disable Major Hasan before he was able to do any more damage. So this is very important training. We want to make sure there are funds available--using existing funding streams but available for active-shooter training wherever it might be provided around the country. Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier today, this week is National Police Week--a time to honor those men and women who have fallen in the line of duty. One way we can better support our Nation's law enforcement officers is by helping them get the training they need to keep themselves and the communities they protect safe. The POLICE Act is a bill that would do exactly that. This bipartisan legislation would allow existing grant money available for police training to be used for active shooter training--a commonsense way to put these funds to good use in a way that does not and will not spend additional Federal money. Right now, current law will not allow local police departments and first responders to use a substantial amount of grant funding through the Justice Department for this kind of critical training. Our bill would change that. With all the threats they face every day on the job, we have an obligation to equip as many officers as possible with the skills and training they need to respond to an active shooter situation. I would like to thank Senator Leahy for working with me on this legislation. I also would like to thank Chairman Grassley for his effort in getting this bill passed out of committee last week. I express my gratitude to Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy. At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 464, S. 2840.

Mr. CORNYN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York for his comments and for his partnership in working on this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 362, S. 2040.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would also like to say a few words about secondary liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act, which JASTA addresses. This bill is called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. It helps fulfill the promise of the original Anti-Terrorism Act, which was intended to ``interrupt, or at least imperil, the flow of money'' to terrorist groups. So, while JASTA clarifies the rule for secondary liability, which may attach to terrorism sponsors, it doesn't impact other aspects of the ATA that may also make them liable. For example, this bill is not intended to alter how violations of sections 2339A-- material support--or 2339C--terrorist financing--can be the basis for direct liability under the ATA. Mr. President, I would add, there is already litigation pending by the families who lost loved ones on 9/11, and right now there appears to be somewhat of a split in the Federal courts with regard to the scope of sovereign immunity and whether it applies. This legislation would basically clarify that both for pending cases and for future claims. At this point, I would defer to my friend, the Senator from New York, for any statement he would care to make, and then I would be happy to offer a unanimous consent request.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the measure.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, all of us remember the horrible events of September 11 and the grief and pain so many people went through in New York. Roughly 3,000 people lost their lives. Obviously, the family members have not forgotten that, and the Nation hasn't forgotten their loss either. The Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, and I have introduced legislation called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. This is bipartisan legislation which would enable Americans and their family members who lost loved ones on that horrible day to pursue their claims for justice against those who sponsored those acts of terrorism on U.S. homeland. This bill was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee without objection, and similar legislation passed the Senate unanimously last Congress. I believe that kind of unanimous support sends a clear message: that we will combat terrorism with every tool we have available and that the victims of terrorist attacks in our country should have every means at their disposal to seek justice. I am grateful for the work of the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, in introducing this bill along with me and Chairman Grassley for shepherding it through the Senate Judiciary Committee. I also appreciate the support of a large bipartisan group of like-minded Senators in this Chamber. We worked with a number of Senators, including the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from South Carolina, who expressed concerns about earlier versions of the legislation. I appreciate their willingness to work with us to deal with their concerns in a way that now has gained their support. This legislation amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act passed in 1976. So we already have a piece of legislation on the books that waives sovereign immunity under some circumstances, but the problem is that it does not extend to terrorist attacks on our homeland by countries and organizations that have not already been designated as state sponsors of terrorism. This makes some small changes in that legislation that first passed in 1976 to expand the scope of that to allow the families of the 9/11 tragedy to seek justice in our courts of law. Mr. President, there are some aspects of the bill that I would like to discuss in particular, and to that effect I would like to enter into a colloquy with my friend on a number of points. Senators Sessions and Graham had expressed concern that earlier versions of this legislation might be interpreted to derogate too far from traditional principles of foreign sovereign immunity and put the United States at risk of being sued for our operations abroad. We worked extensively with them on this issue. To alleviate the concerns they raised, the substitute amendment to S. 2040 narrowly tailors the immunity exception in several way. First, it is limited--like the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's ``tort exception''--to physical injury ``occurring in the United States.'' The act of international terrorism that causes the injury must also take place ``in the United States.'' This focus on U.S. territory avoids the issues raised by the State Department regarding section 1605A, the ``State Sponsor of Terrorism'' exception to the FSIA passed decades ago by Congress. Section 1605A permits jurisdiction over acts that occur anywhere, but is limited to certain states. Second, jurisdiction can only be predicated on acts of terrorism and not on acts of war, as both terms are defined under the Anti-Terrorism Act. Third, the injury must be ``caused by'' the tortious act or acts of the foreign state. This language, which requires a showing of jurisdictional causation, is drawn from decisions of Federal courts interpreting section 1605A. Courts interpreting new section 1605B should look to cases like Kilburn, Rux, and Owens, the analysis of which we intend to incorporate here. Finally, this new version adopts the language of 1605A regarding the conduct of officials, employees, and agents of foreign states. This language incorporates traditional principles of vicarious liability and attribution, including doctrines such as respondeat superior, agency, and secondary liability.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, shortly the Senate will vote on three different versions of appropriations bills that will provide the needed money to help combat the anticipated challenges we are going to have with the Zika virus, which we have talked a lot about. Obviously, Zika is a threat, particularly to women of childbearing age because of the horrific birth defects associated with it, most prominently microcephaly, or basically a skull that is smaller than normal, leading to premature death and, obviously, horrific injuries. There is bipartisan support for this legislation. First of all, we will have a chance to vote on the President's request of $1.9 billion. The biggest objection I have to that $1.9 billion is that it really doesn't come with a plan that says how the President will spend that money. It also is not paid for. As the Presiding Officer well knows, we have a huge national debt, and there is no reason to just gratuitously rack up more debt in order to deal with this public health concern. There is a second vote we will have on a $1.1 billion appropriations bill. This is the product of the good work done by Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri and Senator Patty Murray of Washington. They have cut down the President's request from $1.9 billion to $1.1 billion, and they believe this will fund the needed work not only of this fiscal year but into the next fiscal year as well. That is also not offset or paid for, and I think that is a problem. First of all, the House has proposed a roughly $600 million bill that is fully offset, so we are going to have some differences between the House and the Senate over how we address the Zika virus challenge. The third is a piece of legislation I have offered that I would certainly ask my colleagues to support. This is fully offset out of something called the Prevention and Public Health Fund that was created by the Affordable Care Act. So there is money in the Treasury now that could help pay for the $1.1 billion. I should say that about $900 million of it could be paid for now, and by next year there will be more money put into this Prevention and Public Health Fund. As we can see, the Affordable Care Act provides that. This Prevention and Public Health Fund is ``to provide for expanded and sustained national investment in prevention and public health programs.'' I can't imagine any more urgent public health program or one that we should be looking to prevent more than this particular threat, the Zika virus. I would point out that the Prevention and Public Health Fund has been used to fund some things--many good things, some which I think are questionable, like promoting free pet neutering, encouraging urban gardening, and boosting bicycle clubs. Certainly, prevention of these horrific birth defects and the threat of the Zika virus spreading through the continental United States and its impact on our population is more important than these. So I ask my colleagues, please, let's deal with this threat in the responsible way that we all agree we should, but let's do so in a fiscally responsible way as well. There is no reason to gratuitously add to the deficit and the debt. We can do this in a responsible way from a public health standpoint and fiscally as well. Mr. President, I know the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, is coming to the floor at noon, and we are going to present a matter for the Senate's consideration. I don't see him here yet, but I am told he is on his way. So let me turn to that topic, and I know Senator Schumer will be here momentarily.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the past few months the Zika virus has not only spread across the Caribbean and Latin America, but it has become a matter of grave concern in the United States. Although many of the symptoms are relatively minor, Zika has been found to cause severe birth defects in children if the virus is acquired by a woman of childbearing age who is, in fact, pregnant. In places where the virus has been especially active, experts have found alarming rates of infants born with something called microcephaly--in other words, basically a shrunken skull. Obviously, it is a profoundly damaging birth defect. This is due to the mother being infected by the virus while pregnant. As the weather continues to warm, Texans are rightly concerned about the continued spread of the virus in our State because it is transmitted primarily by mosquitoes. But it is not just any mosquito but those known to be present in places such as Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and some of the warmer areas. But we don't know if that will always be the case or whether they will expand their range or exactly how this could unroll. In fact, cases in 11 Texas counties have already been confirmed, including Austin, Houston, and Dallas. One important distinction in these cases is that they are tied to people traveling to Latin America, Puerto Rico, or Central America right now. In other words, there has been no confirmed case, I believe, by the Centers for Disease Control of anybody actually being bitten by a mosquito in the United States and having acquired the Zika virus. But that doesn't mean that it is not potentially dangerous, in fact, for the reasons I have mentioned, along with the fact that we now have at least a couple of cases of confirmed sexual transmission of the Zika virus. Fortunately, top research and medical facilities in Texas have been working on ways to prevent the spread of the Zika virus and to protect all Americans from its symptoms. A few months ago, I visited with some of those at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, where they told me about their work in Brazil studying this virus. As the world leader in mosquito-borne viruses, their research is continually groundbreaking. In fact, recently the Brazilian Ministry of Health announced a collaboration with researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston to help them develop a Zika virus vaccine. They have also had experience when it comes to tackling other large-scale viruses. Last year UTMB was named one of the first regional Ebola treatment centers in the country, and UTMB researchers went on to develop an effective, quick-acting Ebola vaccine. When they stressed the urgent need for the United States to approach this virus in a careful and deliberate manner, I listened to what they were telling me. I heard a similar message when I recently visited the Texas Medical Center in Houston. They, too, are medical pioneers and are working to create a rapid test for the virus and to strengthen mosquito control in potential hot spots. Interestingly, this is one of the most important components of dealing with the Zika virus; that is, mosquito control. Indeed, we will hear more about some of the EPA regulations that are currently in effect which discourage or inhibit the ability of local public health units in places such as Houston, Galveston, and elsewhere to actually control the mosquito population. We will talk more about that later. But like the researchers in Galveston, these folks at the Texas Medical Center urge congressional action so that our country can be better prepared to handle this potential health crisis, instead of having to react after the fact. When the cases of Ebola were confirmed in Dallas, I remember very clearly how people felt overwhelmed by the fast-developing situation on the ground, so much so that they really did not feel that they were totally prepared ahead of time to deal with it. We don't want to make that mistake twice when it comes to the Zika virus. Conversations I have had with these Texas institutions, as well as the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control, the CDC, have underscored to me the need to act with urgency to avert what could become a major public health crisis in this country. Because States like mine boast a warmer climate and they are in closer proximity to where the mosquitoes that currently carry the Zika virus are located, we will likely serve on the frontline in dealing this summer with this response nationwide. Congress can't afford to sit back and do nothing. I don't hear anybody saying: Do nothing. I hear everybody saying we need to act clearly, with dispatch, and without unnecessary delay. But part of what we need to do is to make sure we have a plan in place and that we are executing a plan in a way that maximizes the effectiveness in combatting not only the mosquitoes that carry this virus but also the virus itself. We have to make sure our public health officials on the frontline of research and prevention have the resources they need to get the job done too. Fortunately, tomorrow, the Senate will vote on several pieces of legislation designed to provide additional Federal funding so public officials can handle this impending crisis head on. The first proposal is from the President of the United States. President Obama has made a spending request of nearly $2 billion that isn't paid for. It is emergency funding, meaning that the funding would be deficit-increasing and debt-increasing. Also, the President's proposal to spend $2 billion comes without very much in the way of a plan about how the administration would use the money. I guess they are asking us to trust them, but, frankly, I think we have a greater responsibility to make sure that the money will be put to good use and that we have appropriated an adequate amount of money--but not more money than is necessary--to deal with this potential crisis. The second piece of legislation we will vote on is a compromise package that was negotiated between the chairman and the ranking member of the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee in a bipartisan and commonsense way. I congratulate Senator Blunt and Senator Murray for working through this in an orderly sort of process, and I commend them on reaching an agreement. Their compromise bill is basically for $1.1 billion. In other words, it is not the $1.9 billion or $2 billion that the President requested. They thought the $1.1 billion was a more accurate and justifiable number. Unfortunately, the legislation that has been negotiated between the chairman and the ranking member of the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee is not paid for either. What this would essentially do is borrow from our children and grandchildren to meet the present exigencies of this crisis. The good news is we have a third option, which I want to talk about briefly. It is a third piece of legislation that I have introduced and which is nearly identical to the Blunt-Murray proposal, the Appropriations subcommittee proposal. It would also provide a compromise of $1.1 billion in Federal funding targeted toward health care professionals across the country. But my bill has a key distinction. It is fully paid for. You might ask: Where does that money come from? When the Affordable Care Act--or ObamaCare, as it has come to be known--was passed, it included a provision for the Prevention and Public Health Fund. This, again, was part of the Affordable Care Act. The purpose that was stated in the legislation was ``to provide for expanded and sustained national investment in prevention and public health programs.'' In other words, it could have been tailor-made to deal with this potential Zika crisis. What I would propose is that we deal with the problem without delay. We appropriate the right amount of money, which both Democrats and Republicans--at least in the Appropriations Committee--have agreed is $1.1 billion, but that we take available funds and funds that will be available under the Prevention and Public Health Fund, and we pay for it. You wouldn't think that would be particularly revolutionary or novel around here, but unfortunately I think too often what we do is we act in an emergency or to avert an emergency and we don't follow through and do it in a fiscally responsible sort of way. The fact of the matter is we do need to address the Zika virus. There is no doubt about that. There is no difference among us in this Chamber or in Congress about the need to deal with that. As a matter of fact, the House of Representatives has proposed a version of their response today, I believe. But we need to do this responsibly. There is no reason why we have to put our country deeper in debt to protect ourselves against this virus. We don't have an endless supply of money. The Federal Treasury can't just keep printing money, and we can't just keep imposing on our children and grandchildren the responsibilities to pay the money back that we continue to borrow, particularly when we have a fund available to offset this expenditure. As the Presiding Officer well knows, our growing debt in and of itself is a threat to our country's future and our way of life. The Presiding Officer and I have listened to the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Perdue, talk about what impact our debt has on our ability not only to withstand another financial crisis, such as we had in 2008, but simply to fund such essential functions of the Federal Government like national defense. Particularly, as the interest rates are going up, more and more money is going to be paid to our bond holders, such as China and others, instead of paying for essential functions of the government, like national defense or safety net programs that we all agree are worthwhile. If we can deal with this potential crisis and do so in a fiscally responsible way without growing the debt, then we ought to be able to do that. This should be a no-brainer. We should take this opportunity tomorrow to give our public health officials and local officials back home the resources they need to protect our constituents--the American people--against the spread of the Zika virus, but we ought to do so without adding to our mounting debt. Fortunately, this legislation also includes a provision that would waive provisions of the Clean Water Act--I have referred to those a little earlier--and permit State and local officials to spray to protect against mosquitoes year around. Unfortunately, this particular legislation, the Clean Water Act, has provisions in it that essentially tie the hands of public health officials when it comes to mosquito eradication, which is one of the essential components of a strategy to defeat this potential crisis. We all agree that the Zika virus is a real threat with real public health consequences. It has already impacted a generation in Brazil and other Latin American countries. We are told it is apparently rampant in Puerto Rico and Haiti, and there is no question it is coming our way. With the summer months ahead of us, the potential for this virus to spread to the United States is a major concern that we ought to address with dispatch. We have to give those on the ground the tools and support they need to address this threat, but we have to do so in a responsible way. I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the legislation which funds the Zika prevention program at $1.1 billion but pays for it out of the Prevention and Public Health Fund, as apparently this fund was created to do--to ``provide for expanded and sustained national investment in prevention and public health programs.'' I urge my colleagues on both sides to support this legislation when we have a chance to vote tomorrow. The time to act is now. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from Utah for his generous remarks about our friend, Senator Bob Bennett. I had the opportunity to serve with Senator Bennett for a number of years. Those of us who are of a certain age, who were raised in the Star Wars period--sometimes I think about Bob Bennett as the Jedi Master, the Obi-Wan Kenobi, one of the wise men of the Senate whom it has been my pleasure to come to know and learn from. Certainly, we will miss him. We send our very best wishes and condolences to Joyce and their entire family, along with 20 grandchildren. It is a huge, wonderful family of which I know he was very, very proud. Working Together in the Senate and Criminal Justice and Mental Health Reform Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit about the Senate's work and what we have been able to do and what we still have to do. In the past we knew there had been an experiment, principally under the leadership of the former majority leader, now the minority leader, Senator Reid, of basically not allowing the Senate to function and not allowing Senators, including Members of the majority party, to offer amendments, lest people be forced to vote on things they later would be held accountable for by the voters. What a concept that is. In fact, we have seen a different approach at work under the leadership of Senator McConnell, the Senate majority leader in the 114th Congress, over the last, roughly, year and a half. It is one where everyone gets to participate, and when people have a better idea, they are allowed to offer that by way of an amendment and constructive proposal to improve legislation and to try to do what they can to build consensus, to get legislation passed in the Senate and the House, and get it on the President's desk. We are going to have differences. Of course we are. But it is important that we try and that we not just come here to make speeches and vote no on everything, but we actually try to find some way of getting to yes, particularly where it doesn't violate our principles and where we are able to make incremental progress on the work we have been sent to do. Fortunately, we have seen the Senate get back to work. We just recently passed important legislation, such as the Energy Policy Modernization Act--a bill that will update our country's energy policies. This follows on the heels of a vote late last year where we lifted the antiquated ban on crude oil exports. It is something to give our domestic producers access to global prices for their products, something that encourages domestic production and helps us become less dependent on foreign imports and helps us help our friends and allies around the world who are sometimes dependent for their source of energy on some pretty unsavory characters who can cut it off, using energy as a weapon. But, particularly, it is important in terms of getting Americans back to work. While the unemployment rate continues to tick down to roughly about 5 percent, the untold story is the percentage of people actually participating in the workforce is at a 30-year low, and people have, unfortunately, given up looking for work in too many instances, making that 5-percent unemployment statistic a little bit misleading. We learned again last week, I think it was, that our economy grew at 0.5 percent. I remember when we used to talk around here about the economy growing at 4 percent or 3 percent, at least. In other words, as population increases, the only way more jobs get created is for our economy to continue to grow. There are not a lot of problems that America has that couldn't be made better by a growing economy. Unfortunately, we have seen the negative consequences of some of the policies, particularly of the executive branch when it comes to regulation, which have made that very difficult. We have been making some progress in the Energy Policy Modernization Act as part of that. It has passed consumer-friendly legislation that will help people get access to energy help and provide the incentives for them to conserve. We have also done things such as pass a reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Act, the FAA. That may not seem like a big deal unless, of course, you fly in an airplane and care about safety. The legislation we passed--I think the Senate has done that--has helped regulate the growing number of remotely run aircraft or drones to make sure those don't conflict with passenger planes, so those will be safer. That is just another example. We have also passed important legislation to deal with this prescription drug abuse crisis. Many call it the opioid abuse crisis, which happens too often. When people can't get access to the addictive prescription painkilling drugs they have been prescribed, they turn to the cheaper forms of addictive drugs such as heroin. We were able to pass the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act back in March, and I know the House of Representatives--I believe this week--is taking up this same legislation. My hope is that we can continue to work together to bring relief to those struggling with addictions and to help save those who would otherwise suffer from a fatal overdose of drugs. We still have a lot of work ahead of us. We started the appropriations process last month, which I know has been an enormous frustration to a lot of people. I remember all too clearly, as the Presiding Officer does, the alternative, which was doing it in a 12-step process. The regular appropriations process was to do an omnibus appropriations bill at the end of the year, which is a lousy way of doing business. We would have one bill that would spend roughly $1 trillion. That process lacked the transparency and accountability that necessarily goes into a step-by-step process, where we move 12 separate appropriation bills across the floor. We all said we wanted to do this. This basic work is done by the legislature so we can pay the bills according to the limits we have agreed upon in terms of spending, but we keep running into roadblocks. Last night we had a vote to try to get back on the Water and Energy appropriations bill. The obstacle appears to be that our friends on the other side of the aisle don't want to vote on the germane amendment that was offered by the Senator from Arkansas. As a result of their objections to proceeding in the normal way to consider germane amendments like that one, the fact is, the majority leader had to file for cloture on that bill in order to guarantee that there will be a vote on that amendment. Hopefully, once that is resolved, we will get back on final passage of that appropriations bill and then move on to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. After that, I believe the plan is to move on to the VA-Military Construction appropriations bill. In other words, it is not fancy work, but it is our work, and it is something we should be doing in a transparent and methodical sort of way. These bills actually represent the fundamentals of legislating--the sort of blocking and tackling. They include resources to fund our military, which is something we all say we are for. We need to keep our commitments to our veterans, which is a sacred obligation, and we need to help provide the necessary infrastructure across our country. We need to keep the folks who serve our country in diplomatic posts abroad and those who protect our borders here at home safe. I hope we can grind our way through this so we can take up and pass all 12 appropriations bills. The people who have elected us deserve that and not some end-of-the-year mad dash to the finish line, where everybody comes away pretty much dissatisfied by the process. Beyond the appropriations process, I also want to point out some important work being done at the committee level in the Senate. I serve on the Judiciary Committee under the leadership of Chairman Chuck Grassley from Iowa. At the end of April, I was proud to join a number of my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to announce major proposals to reform our criminal justice system. Back when I went to law school, more years ago than I would like to recount, we were told the criminal law was supposed to be used to punish people who violated the law, to deter others who might be tempted to commit crimes in the future, and to rehabilitate people who made a mistake and ended up in prison. My experience and observation has been we have largely forgotten the rehabilitation process. Beginning in 2007, in Texas and other States, we began to provide incentives for low-risk offenders who were in prison who, if given the opportunity, would begin the process of turning their lives around. They might be dealing with a drug or alcohol addiction or an education deficit, such as the fellow I heard about when I was in a prison in East Texas recently. The shop teacher at that prison said: I have guys in my shop class in this prison who can't even read a ruler. How in the world are they supposed to get a job on the outside? How in the world are they supposed to turn their lives around once they get out of prison? We simply seem to forget that people who are in prison will usually get out of prison, and the only question is: How well equipped will they be to work in civil society and to hopefully turn their lives around and become productive members of society. I am not naive enough to say or to think that everyone will take advantage of those opportunities, but we know that many will take advantage of those opportunities. That is not just conjecture, that is based on the experience of States like Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina. As former attorney general and long-time Federal district judge in New York, Michael Mukasey, said: The gold standard in terms of criminal justice reform is the crime rate. I know there has been some discussion about the incarceration rate, and some people want to talk about other things, but he said the real question has to do with the crime rate. If the crime rate is going down, you are doing something right. If the crime rate is going up, you are doing something wrong. The good news is the crime rates in places like Texas have gone down as a result of some of these programs which help to prepare those who are willing to take and accept this help so they can turn their lives around. It has also helped us deal with the ballooning prison system cost. Indeed, in Texas alone we have been able to shut down three prisons as a result of reducing the population, slowing down and in many cases eliminating this turnstile, where people go to prison, get out, commit other crimes, and end up right back in prison again. This is an example of criminal justice reform which I know the President is for. There is another component of sentencing reform which I think very sensibly deals with some of the mandatory prison sentences that were passed many years ago with the best intentions but some of which have really overshot the mark. The most important element, when it comes to a criminal sentence, is the certainty of the sentence, not the length of the sentence. Again, Judge Mukasey, former Attorney General of the United States said: Many times people who commit crimes have impulse- control problems, and they are not thinking about what is going to happen to them 25 years from now or 50 years from now. They are thinking about what will happen to them next week, today, or later tomorrow. So I believe the certainty of punishment is a more important consideration than the length of the punishment. It may make some people feel good to say we are going to put somebody away for the rest of their lives, and in some instances that is the appropriate punishment, but when it involves a nonviolent offense and they are stacking mandatory sentences in a way that is disproportionate to the offense that was committed, I think it is appropriate to consider changing the mandatory minimum sentencing. We also created a safety valve. Nobody who is currently in prison gets the benefit of the changes in the mandatory minimum sentences without appearing in front of the same Federal district judge who sentenced that person to prison in the first place. That Federal district judge will be able to not only consider the circumstances of the crime but the postconviction and postincarceration conduct as well as the comments and input of any victims of the crime. This way they can determine--based on all of the circumstances--whether you ought to be given the benefit of that reduced mandatory minimum sentence. It is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It gives that person a right to be considered by a Federal district judge as long as it does not involve a serious crime as defined by Federal law. We categorically excluded that to make sure this is focused primarily on nonviolent offenders, those who are least likely to put the community at risk. There is one other area that I think we have an opportunity to work on and perhaps succeed with because there seems to be no real objection to the idea; that is, how to deal with people who have mental illness in our society. Back in the old days, people with mental illness used to be put in institutions. They were basically locked up and the key was thrown away. Well, we know that didn't work very well. It was basically warehousing people with mental illness. Someone had the idea to deinstitutionalize those with mental illness. That way they would get to live in the community and would then receive the sort of followup help, assistance, and care they needed in order to maximize their potential, whatever it might be. It was good in theory, but after the deinstitutionalization took place, people ended up living in the streets--the homeless whom all of us see. They are obviously mentally ill, but they live on the streets or end up in our criminal justice system because they are not getting the treatment that might help them to become more adaptive and productive. I told this story before, and I will repeat it briefly now. I have a friend who is the sheriff of Bexar County, in San Antonio, TX. While at a meeting recently here in Washington, DC, he said: How would you like to meet the largest mental health provider in America. I said: Sure. She said: Let me introduce you to the sheriff of Los Angeles County. In other words, the person who runs the LA County jail. In addition to the homeless who are living on our streets or crowding our emergency rooms with a variety of illnesses--real and imagined--a large number of people end up in our jails. Thanks to great innovative programs like that in Bexar County, San Antonio, TX, and as a result of what Sheriff Pamerleau and others have done, we began to address the problem at its root and are making sure that people who need help are not just warehoused in jail but are actually diverted to a treatment facility. I have introduced legislation which I think might help the situation, and that is called the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act. The fact is, Adam Lanza's mother--Adam Lanza was the shooter at Sandy Hook who stole his mother's gun, killed his own mother, and then went on to murder those poor, innocent children at Sandy Hook Elementary School--basically had two choices: One is she could seek an involuntary, temporary commitment to a mental institution, after which he gets out, he is angry at her, their relationship deteriorates even more, and she has nowhere else to turn or we could have a mechanism where she could go to a civil court and ask a judge to enter a court order requiring her son to undergo outpatient treatment, to make sure he saw a psychologist or mental health professional and was actually compliant with the doctor's orders in terms of taking his medication. One of the biggest problems in the mental health area is that people will simply start to feel better and then quit taking their medicine. As a result, they end up becoming sicker and sicker and sicker. In Adam Lanza's case--because his mother really didn't have any mechanism to make him comply with his doctor's order to take his medication--he basically became more and more mentally ill until this tragedy occurred. I am not saying this would have necessarily prevented that tragedy, but I think it would provide another tool that loved ones can use, and I believe need, when a member of their family suffers from symptoms of mental illness and simply refuses to deal with it and comply with their doctor's orders. This month is actually National Mental Health Awareness Month, and it is an appropriate time for us to talk not only about the solution--or at least something that will improve the status quo, when it comes to mental illness in our country--but it is also a time to educate people about mental health issues and to highlight ongoing efforts and to support those who are struggling. I dare to say that there is not a single family in America that is not affected by this problem or, perhaps, if it is not an immediate family member, then it is somebody they know or somebody with whom they live in the community. So we have a lot of work to do. Criminal justice reform and mental health reform are two issues that are absolutely the opposite of partisan; they are nonpartisan issues. There are issues where people have different points of view, and that is fine. Let's see where we can build consensus and what things we may have to leave for future legislation. The basic point is that, even though the media is obsessed with what is happening in the Presidential race and the primaries on both sides, we have been able to continue to do the people's work here. There is a lot to be done, and, frankly, there is a lot more that we can do. But we have an opportunity to build on nearly a year and a half of a strong bipartisan record of accomplishment, one that has benefitted both those in the majority and the minority. Frankly, the focus shouldn't be on us--on who is up and who is down-- but on what we are able to do together to pass legislation that helps the American people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Reserving the right to object, there is bipartisan support for doing what we need to do to address the Zika virus, which, as the Senator from Florida correctly pointed out, has dramatically affected the territory of Puerto Rico. Fortunately, according to the latest statistics from the Centers for Disease Control, there is no single case in the continental United States of a mosquito-borne infection in someone in the continental United States. But that is not to say this is not a serious matter. In fact, it is. That is why Republicans were glad to see the administration use the unexpended funds for the Ebola crisis--some $500 million--as a downpayment on what is going to be necessary to deal with this. But the fact is, our friends across the aisle have requested a $1.9 billion blank check, and they haven't told us what the plan is for the use of the funds. In the bill filed by Senator Nelson, he said those funds will be spent until they are gone. And, of course, it is emergency spending, which is deficit spending and adds to the debt. But the legislation completely lacks any sort of accountability that would only come through a regular appropriations process where we consider this in a deliberate sort of way. So I have a number of questions for the Senator that I would ask. I would note that I have traveled to the Galveston National Laboratory, which has done some world-class research in this area and also on the Ebola virus and other infectious diseases. Last Friday I was in Houston at the Texas Medical Center talking to the experts and trying to learn more about this so I can do my job as a Senator in a responsible sort of way. We all agree that this is a serious matter and it should be negotiated on a bipartisan basis, but we should at least have a plan from the administration for how the money is going to be spent. There is no plan. It is a blank check. And until we get a plan and can sit down and avoid the histrionics and the gamesmanship and the partisanship on something that should be nonpartisan, we object to the request.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me just suggest that, contrary to what the Democratic leader has said, the questions I have asked about where their plan is are not nonsense, and let me demonstrate the specific questions which I have and which I think other responsible Senators are going to want answers to before we write a blank check for $1.9 billion to the administration, particularly when they already have access, as the Senator from Florida said, to the $589 million, which are unexpended Ebola funds. One of the questions I would like to get answers to--and I think we can then have a meaningful discussion and act responsibly--is, What specific activities are going to be funded by the $1.9 billion plan? For example, the bill from the Senator from Florida provides $743 million to the Centers for Disease Control. Is that for domestic activities? Is it focused on Puerto Rico? Is it for CDC international activities? And if so, where? The second question I have is, What are the agency's priorities? Continuing with the CDC issue, will they focus on vector control activities, outreach, and education? As we know, this is a mosquito- borne disease. It is not the only mosquito-borne disease, but unfortunately this mosquito has not only been present in Central and South America but is now, as the Democratic leader says, present in some of the more tropical climates, the warmer climates, including my State of Texas. So I take this personally and seriously. But it also affects Florida, no doubt about it, Louisiana, and we don't know how it might spread or how this virus might morph over time. Another question I have is, How long does the administration expect to use the funding? For example, we have an annual appropriations process, which has been filibustered by our Democratic colleagues, starting with the Energy and Water bill, and now they want us to fund an emergency appropriation for an unlimited period of time without any plan to spend the money. That is irresponsible. The request from the Senator from Florida in his bill says the money will be spent ``until expended,'' until it runs out, and they have provided no further details on what will be funded this year and in future years. The reason I mention the appropriations process is that we all know we are in the appropriations season now, and it would be appropriate for the Committee on Appropriations to process this request and to come up with a recommendation for the full Senate, but that has not yet happened. I am told the discussions are ongoing, which is a good thing, and that is where this ought to be resolved, not through grandstanding on the Senate floor in an effort to try to make this a partisan issue. This is not a partisan or political issue. It should not be. There is bipartisan concern and willingness to address this issue. But can they spend $1.9 billion before the end of the fiscal year, when the appropriations process will start up again? In other words, it doesn't take a lot of thought to realize this is a request for a blank check without regard for the accountability that comes from what we call the regular order here in the appropriations process in the Senate. We know the administration transferred funding from unobligated Ebola funds 2 weeks ago. What is the administration using that $589 million for that is related to Zika? I think we should know the answer to that. And that also demonstrates what happens when Congress appropriates money on an emergency basis without knowing what the plan is, because obviously the Ebola crisis has abated to some extent. I am not saying it has gone away completely, particularly in countries like Africa, but there is a pot of money--$589 million--which suggests maybe we inadvertently appropriated more money on an emergency basis for the Ebola crisis than ultimately was necessary. I am not faulting anybody for that; I am just saying that is the way this works when you ask for the money first without a plan and there is no accountability for how the money is spent. You have these pots of money out there that are-- fortunately in this case--available now to deal with the Zika issue. In the Health and Human Services request contained in the bill from the Senator from Florida, there are other issues. One, they ask for a governmentwide contingency fund that Health and Human Services controls and can transfer funds elsewhere. So what they want to do is play a shell game with this money. They want to get the money, and if they do not need it to deal with Zika, they can transfer it for other purposes--again, without any transparency or any real political accountability. I think responsible Members of the Senate--and I would expect all 100 of us would put ourselves in that category--would want to know where the transparency is, where the accountability is, where the plan is, so we can sit down and do this as mature adults in a nonpartisan way in order to solve the problem. Here is another thing that sort of jumps out at me: When I look at the President's request for $1.9 billion, they actually talk about funding matters unrelated to Zika. They talk about funding things at the Environmental Protection Agency. And looking at the request to transfer funds governmentwide, basically they are requesting money, it appears--unless there is some logical explanation as to why we should, which they have not yet made--on an emergency basis, to grant funds to the Environmental Protection Agency. That is a little hard to understand. Finally, there is this: All of us are willing to deal with this in a responsible, nonpartisan way. That is the reason I have spent time at the Galveston National Laboratory and the Texas Medical Center trying to learn as much as I can about this, so I can do my job, just as I am sure every individual Senator wants to do their job in a responsible way. But to come in and ask for $1.9 billion in emergency funding, which means it is not paid for--it is borrowed money, which adds to the deficit and the debt--is a pretty serious matter, especially when our national debt is $19 trillion and has almost doubled under the Obama administration. This is a very serious matter, and I treat it seriously, and I trust all 100 Senators believe this is something we ought to deal with responsibly and in a deliberate sort of way, and we will. But it is not by coming to the floor and grandstanding by asking for $1.9 billion blank checks without any plan to spend it in an appropriate sort of way. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, has the Democratic leader yielded the floor, or is it for a question?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, after many months of discussion and debate, today we announced a bipartisan piece of legislation to reform our criminal justice system. I have been in the Senate long enough to realize that even the best ideas that don't have bipartisan support go nowhere. The good news is, this is an issue that enjoys broad bipartisan support and actually represents the marriage of two distinct parts. The more I think about it, the more it represents a continuum in terms of the way we punish people who violate our criminal laws and how we treat them when they are in prison and how we prepare them--or not--for a life of reentry into civil society. Even in the polarized political environment that our country represents today, it is an example of an opportunity to demonstrate that when enough people identify a problem and work together, we can actually come up with viable solutions. In a previous life, I served 13 years as a State district court judge and then as attorney general. I have had an opportunity to witness some of the strengths and weaknesses of our justice system firsthand. Though we made some significant progress in reducing crime across the country--by the way, that ought to be the litmus test, the crime rate. If the crime rate is going down, to me, it indicates we are doing something right. If the crime rate goes up, that is pretty much a litmus test that we are doing something wrong. The truth is, our criminal justice system has been plagued with inefficiencies, overcrowding, and failures that are ultimately detrimental to public safety. We spend too much of our criminal justice resources locking up low-level, nonviolent offenders and not enough targeting the most dangerous and violent criminals. The good news is, a number of States, including Texas, have seen the need and have implemented statewide criminal justice reforms with positive results. As I said earlier, the longer I am here, the more things occur to me about how we do business, but the idea that somehow we can initiate reforms at the national level for 320 million people and then cram them down on a big and diverse country like the United States is pretty ludicrous. Actually, the Federal Government is rarely competent to do that sort of thing. We saw this with the health care reforms, which have resulted in prices actually going up and most people dissatisfied with the health care reforms. If we just tried things out at the local level, and if they were successful, then scale them up, I think we would have a much better chance for success. That is exactly what has happened in the criminal justice area. I know most people think about Texas as a State tough on crime, and that is true, but in the middle of the first decade of this millennium, we saw the need to deal with overcrowding. We saw high recidivism or repeat offenders, and we were facing a major budget shortfall. In other words, we tried to keep building prisons to build our way out of the problem. Instead of just spending more money to build more prisons and hoping the problems would go away, the major problem we overlooked before was--which we finally realized--that people in prison at some point will mostly get out of prison. The question is, Do they go back into prison after committing other crimes or can we help those who are willing to accept the help, turn their lives around, and become productive members of society? We opted for a different approach. We traded in our construction plans for plans to help lower-risk offenders turn their lives around and become productive members of society. As I said, that is because most offenders will one day get out of prison. Today Texas has improved and increased programs designed to help men and women behind bars take responsibility for their crimes and then prepare to reenter society as productive, law-abiding members of the community. I am not naive enough to say this is something we are going to be able to do for 100 percent of the people behind bars. That is just not true. I wish the world was the kind of place where once people made mistakes and ended up behind bars, they could transform their lives universally and then enter productive society. It is not true, but there are many who want to who need our help and can benefit from some of these programs. This includes training that could impact a prisoner's life, somebody with a drug problem, somebody with a mental illness, or somebody who has been drinking, exacerbating their problems. Those sorts of issues can benefit from treatment and from rehabilitation. Those who are educationally inadequately prepared to enter the workforce, we can help them through work programs and job training. Many of these programs have allowed local communities to get involved as well, by encouraging partnerships in Texas between prisons and faith-based organizations and people who believe in radical transformation of people's lives through their faith. They can focus on helping those prisoners who are willing and wanting to turn their lives around get the training and life skills they need in order to succeed. I will never forget my visit just a few months back to the H.H. Coffield Unit maximum security prison in East Texas, where I saw firsthand how important some of these types of programs are. I went to one section of the prison and was introduced to the shop instructor. He told me some of the inmates in his shop class came to him unable to read a simple tape measure. I think it is shocking. It was to me. I think it is shocking to most people that anybody can reach adulthood unable to do something so basic as to read a tape measure, but yet that was an example of the types of people who were in that prison. It is a remarkable example of how much opportunity there is through education to actually help: drug-alcohol treatment, mental health treatment, and to prepare people to reenter civil society. I am pleased Texas--in addition to our well-earned reputation for being tough on crime--is now known as being smart on crime and a good example what we could do nationally. We are not the only State. Other States have done things, too, but the results in Texas are remarkable. Between 2007 and 2012, our overall rate of incarceration fell by 9.4 percent. The crime rate dropped and-- as I have said--that is the gold standard. It is not the rate of incarceration. It is not how many people are in prison. It is what is happening to the crime rate. Our crime rate dropped and, not insignificantly, we saved more than $2 billion of the taxpayer money. We were able to physically close three prison facilities. That is the first time that has ever happened in our State. We are not the only ones. For example, Georgia reduced its crime rate by more than 10 percent with similar programs. South Carolina and Ohio reduced their crime rate by 14 percent. North Carolina and Texas have both reduced their crime rates by more than 20 percent. These reforms make our communities safer, which again is the first objective of criminal justice reform, it is the second objective of criminal justice reform, and it is the third objective of criminal justice reform. Does it make our community safer? The answer, from the evidence, is yes. I think there is no question but that we should consider some of these reforms at the Federal level. Let's take State successes and scale them up so the rest of the country can benefit where they are not otherwise already doing this and where we can do this in the Federal prison system and not just in the State system. That is where the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act comes in. This bill includes legislation that I introduced last year that takes this Texas model and builds on it to help restore an important part of our criminal justice system that is too often forgotten; that is, rehabilitation. When I went to law school more years ago than I wish to admit, we were told that the purpose of criminal law was punishment and deterrence, to deter others from committing similar acts. The third was we were told it was rehabilitation. We were going to help people change their lives if they made a mistake. Instead, over time our prisons have become warehouses where we just warehouse people and don't do enough to try to rehabilitate people, those who are willing to take the opportunity to deal with their problems in a constructive sort of way and turn their lives around. I have introduced legislation, along with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. As anybody who follows the Senate knows, we agree on very little, but we agree on this. We were both former attorneys general. He was a former U.S. attorney, and he has seen a similar experience in his State. So we introduced this portion of the legislation to encourage programs that would help inmates learn valuable skills they can transfer back home to their communities and help them turn from a life of crime. It is important to note that not only does reduced recidivism impact an individual life--which is reason enough to do what we can to help--but it also helps that individual's family because the collateral damage from somebody making a mistake and ending up in prison does not stop with them. It stops with their families, including their children, and their whole community, but it also makes financial sense too. The Justice Department spends around 30 percent of its budget detaining Federal inmates. By reinvesting more of this money in recidivism reduction programs instead of building more Federal prisons, we have an opportunity to save tax dollars and plow more of the money back where it can have the best impact. Inmates can be rehabilitated, neighborhoods can be made safer, and tax dollars can be better put to use. We have also made other changes in the legislation that represent the give-and-take that usually happens in the Senate. Legislating is a consensus-building process, and that is a good thing. Initially, when the corrections act was introduced, there was a separate piece of legislation called the Smarter Sentencing Act, which focused on, as the name would suggest, sentencing with a goal to reduce some of the mandatory minimum sentences which were a part of the 1990s effort to get tougher on crime. This is where we have actually benefited a lot from the input from those who initially were unpersuaded about the merits of that part of the legislation. For example, we have categorically taken out, removed, any benefit of the Smarter Sentencing Act provisions for somebody who has committed a serious crime, as defined by Federal law. So somebody who is a violent offender, somebody who has committed a serious crime, cannot benefit from the Smarter Sentencing Act. There is an area where I am afraid there is some misunderstanding by some folks, and some people are actively spreading disinformation, suggesting that as a result of the Smarter Sentencing Act provisions, there is a get-out-of-jail-free card; that we are automatically going to come in and cut prison sentences for people to get out on the street. That is just not true. They need to take another look at the legislation. Under some circumstances, and only if you are a low-level, nonviolent offender, you can ask the court--the court in which you were actually convicted and before the judge who actually dispensed the sentence and before the prosecutor who actually put you in prison--for a reduction retroactively of long-term mandatory minimum sentences. For example, under some circumstances, back in the days of three strikes and you are out, you could get a life sentence for three relatively minor offenses. Now, where appropriate, the judge could say: Well, we are going to reduce that to 25 years. That is still a long time, particularly if you are talking about three relatively minor offenses. There is one other example where a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence could be reduced to 15 years. So if you haven't served 15 years, you are certainly not going to get out of prison. But the whole point is that this is a negotiated piece of legislation for which we tried to garner as much support as we could, and I am pleased to announce today that we have five new cosponsors of this legislation. I believe there are now 37 Senators on a bipartisan basis who support this legislation as cosponsors. Earlier this week, we got a very important endorsement from an organization for which I have tremendous respect. This is the largest organization of prosecutors in America. It is the National District Attorneys Association. They represent about 1,500 district attorneys and 30,000 assistant district attorneys across the country. They have endorsed this legislation. Yesterday, at the Republican lunch and conference, we had people such as former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served 20 years on the Federal bench in New York, talk about how he thought this was a well- balanced and worthwhile piece of legislation. The bottom line is that we need to make sure that violent offenders and hardened criminals stay in prison and away from our communities. I am talking about the people who will not take advantage of the opportunity to turn their lives around, the people who must be separated from society because they have made a decision to pursue a life of crime. At the same time, while we have focused on the hardened criminals and the most violent, we have to address our expanding prison system that too often perpetuates a life of crime. When I was a younger lawyer, I was told that often our prison system is an organization of higher education in crime because, of course, that is who is there--people who have committed crimes. And people who have committed rather low-level, nonviolent offenses, particularly when they are housed with people who have chosen a more violent life of crime, can suffer terrible detrimental impacts. The idea is to focus on the hardened criminals, the violent criminals, and take a look at the low-level, nonviolent offenders and see if some will take advantage of the opportunity to turn their lives around. Local communities in conservative States--red States such as Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina--have already proven it is possible to do both. After months of discussion, I am confident we can bring this success to the rest of the country with this legislation. Like every piece of legislation, though, we know there is an arduous path forward. While this bill was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it still needs to come to the floor of the Senate, where all 100 Senators will have an opportunity to help improve that product. And then there is the House of Representatives. Earlier today, Senator Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I met with Congressman Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, about our ideas together and how we can move this legislation forward. And I know the President is anxious to sign a criminal justice reform bill. This could actually be a good bipartisan accomplishment of the 114th Congress. I appreciate the bipartisan effort on all sides to work constructively toward a bill that can win broad bipartisan support. For those who don't like parts of the bill, bring your ideas to us. That is the way this process is supposed to work. Let's make it better. Let's build bipartisan support and consensus. Let me just say in closing that I particularly want to thank the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Grassley, for his stewardship of this legislation through the process. As an experienced Member of the Senate, somebody who has been at this a while, he knows better than most how to shepherd legislation--particularly potentially controversial legislation--through this process. He has been masterful in bringing us this far. I think we owe it to our constituents and to the country to take the lessons we have learned at the State and local level and bring those to benefit the rest of the country. Let's make our criminal justice system, as the name suggests, more just and at the same time more effective. And let's save taxpayers a buck or two in the process. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. CORNYN

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