John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

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

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. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we have recently been talking quite a bit--because, frankly, unless we talk about it people won't know what happened--about how productive we have been over the last year and a half in advancing legislation that benefits the American people, which is, of course, the reason why they sent us here. I say we have been talking about it, because if we don't talk about it, maybe they will never learn, and even if we talked about it, some of them may never believe it. But the fact of the matter is that we need to talk about what we are doing here for the people we represent. Of course, nothing happens in the Senate or in Congress or in Washington unless it is done on a bipartisan basis. But leadership matters. Leadership matters. We have seen with the new Republican majority in the 114th Congress, under Senator McConnell and Speaker Ryan now, that we have been able to pass some important legislation. This includes legislation to combat the epidemic of opioid abuse throughout our Nation. We passed an important piece of legislation called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act to deal with it. But I want to talk about another aspect of the prescription drug problem or issue and reflect on some bipartisan legislation we passed 6 years ago--obviously, with people on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers--when we came together to tackle another issue related to prescription drugs. This had to do with the fact that many prescription drugs are filled. They will sit in medicine cabinets and perhaps be subject to pilfering by people for whom they were not prescribed or be disposed of in a way that is bad for the environment. We found that the growing use of prescription drugs for nonmedical uses is particularly a problem among teenagers. When people take drugs for recreational or other purposes that have not been prescribed for them, unfortunately the consequences can be fatal. We noticed that some State and local law enforcement agencies have had success with drug take-back programs. The programs allowed people to turn in their leftover prescription drugs, limiting the chances that these drugs would get into the hands of someone who doesn't need them or that they would hurt them. I remember in Austin, TX, shortly after we passed this legislation in 2010, going to one of the locations where the take-back program was in use, and people were bringing garbage sacks full of prescription drugs they had in their home. In some instances, they had a relative who had been ill and passed away. They had all of these prescription drugs that were sitting there, and they didn't know what to do with them. Do you flush them down the toilet? Do you put them in the garbage can? What do you do? Fortunately, we provided a mechanism for people to deal with these unneeded drugs. We focused our efforts on making it easier for Federal agencies to take and dispose of some of the most dangerous drugs, including opioids, and finding a way to encourage more communities to do the same. The legislation we passed in 2010 was the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act, and it gave law enforcement officials the flexibility they need to be able to build these programs. Like most legislation nobody has ever heard of, it passed Congress unanimously. But just because we didn't fight like cats and dogs doesn't mean it is not worthwhile. I am thankful that this week we will be able to highlight the importance of legislation like this to address our Nation's prescription drug epidemic. Today, folks on Capitol Hill can hand in any unused prescription medication they have as part of Federal take-back day. That is today. On Saturday, we will get a chance to see this in action across the country through the National Prescription Drug Take-Back Day. Take-back days not only highlight the problem of prescription drug abuse, they help local communities take control of the problem by rallying the community to turn in drugs that are either unwanted or expired and to make sure they are safely disposed of. I look forward to going back home to Texas for national take-back day this weekend, where I will have a chance to join local law enforcement and city leaders in Dallas and Austin and Walgreens pharmacy--all working together to help highlight this important initiative. I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same. United States-Mexico Relationship Mr. President, separately, I want to talk for a moment about another matter of importance, and that is the importance of our Nation's relationship with our neighbor to the south. Coming from Texas, which has 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico, I often observe that this is a relationship from which we cannot get a divorce. We are bound together as countries, contiguous countries, and frankly our well-being depends in part on how well Mexico is doing. We know that Mexico, like the United States, has its own unique challenges. As the largest exporting State in the country, Texas exported $95 billion worth of goods to Mexico just last year--$95 billion to Mexico just last year. In fact, Mexico is our largest export market, and it is the second largest export market of the United States. The truth is, Mexico and its economy are very important to our economy and how we do as a country. In today's globalized world, we must continue to support our economic partnership with Mexico and find ways to build on it and certainly not do anything to undermine it. That is why I prioritized efforts such as the Cross-Border Trade and Enhancement Act, legislation I have introduced with my colleague in the House, a Democrat by the name of Henry Cuellar. I worked with him a lot on border-related and especially trade-related issues. This bill would help reduce wait times and upgrade infrastructure at our border ports of entry. I bet most people don't realize that the single largest land port of entry into the United States is Laredo, TX. If you come with me to Laredo sometime, you will see semis and tractor-trailers stacked up literally for hours trying to get across the International Bridge, engaging in the kind of trade that helps support American jobs and helps our economy. It is important that we move goods and people more efficiently, safely, and legally, and grow our trading relationships with partners like Mexico. The fact is, 6 million American jobs depend on binational trade with Mexico--things we send there and things they send here. A lot of the jobs that used to go to China because they could produce things in a manufacturing process that was cheaper because of lower wages and the like--because of the benefit of the proximity of Mexico, many of the maquiladoras and other manufacturing facilities in Mexico are integral to North American manufacturing. Our relationship with Mexico, as complicated as it can sometimes be, goes well beyond impressive trade statistics. Mexico is a key partner for the United States as we work to keep our country safe and to help them deal with the challenges they have from a law enforcement standpoint. Mexico is critical to our joint goals of countering and interdicting illegal substances entering the United States from across the border. We know the supply is huge, and unfortunately the demand in the United States is huge, and our Mexican friends always remind us of that. Every time we are critical of them, they say: Well, if it weren't for the demand in the United States, the supply wouldn't be there. They have a point. We have also worked with Mexico in trying to stem the tide of illegal immigration. I know most people may not quite accept that, but the fact is, Mexico has stepped up and dealt with immigration across its southern border from countries such as in Central America--some of the most challenging environments in this hemisphere. We have seen that manifested in the tens of thousands of unaccompanied children who come from Central America, across Mexico, and into the United States, ending up on our doorstep. But Mexico has worked with us to try to stem that flow of illegal immigration from Central America. We have worked together to try to help make sure our border is not an easy target for terrorists and other bad actors seeking entry to our country. There is no doubt that these shared challenges are just that-- challenging. But what should be crystal clear to all of us is that we can't address them without working with Mexico. We can't ignore it. As I said earlier, we can't get a divorce. We have to work this out because our futures are joined together in many important respects. That is why I say that the success of the United States depends in part on Mexico's success, and we should diligently look for ways to grow that partnership for the good of both countries. One practical way we can do that is by confirming a U.S. Ambassador to represent us in Mexico City. Roberta Jacobson was nominated last summer, and I believe she is qualified to represent us in this key relationship. Our bilateral relationship is simply too important to the people of Texas and to the people of the United States to leave this position unfilled. We have to get somebody representing the United States in Mexico City to advocate on behalf of the United States for all of the reasons I mentioned earlier--trade, security, immigration. Otherwise, I don't think we are going to be able to make the kind of progress we all would like to see, and we certainly can't afford to let our relationship with Mexico go stagnant. That is one of the risks of not having an ambassador there. I was really glad to hear my friend, the junior Senator from Florida, call the U.S.-Mexico relationship one of the most important ones we have. He said that yesterday on the floor. I share his optimism that this impasse over the confirmation of Ms. Jacobson can be resolved soon. I certainly think it is time we come together to move her nomination forward. Here in the waning days of the Obama administration, it is very important that we have this important ambassadorship filled for all of the reasons I mentioned earlier. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

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

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, for the reasons previously expressed by the majority leader, I object.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, for reasons previously given, I object.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 26, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Navigating Business Tax Reform.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 26, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a hearing on April 26, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 26, 2016, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Review of Resources, Priorities and Programs in the FY 2017 State Department Budget Request.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 26, 2016, at 10 a.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 26, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Need for More Timeliness and Transparency: Oversight of the Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Program.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I fear that sometimes here in the Senate we get bogged down in the minutia and the process and don't really talk about the why of how things are done here. We talk a lot about the how, but we don't talk about the why. I just want to speak for a couple of minutes about why it is so important that we pass the regular appropriation bills and put what we are trying to do here in a larger context. Our colleagues will remember that last year we were unable to pass the 12 regular appropriation bills because our Democratic colleagues filibustered those pieces of legislation in order to force a negotiation to raise the spending caps on discretionary spending. I regret that. I wish it hadn't happened, but it did and there is not much we can do about it. But in the process, what happened is that we ended up having to pass a fiscal year-end omnibus appropriations bill that lacked any basic transparency. There was about $1 trillion-plus worth of spending, and I think most people's reaction is this: Why do you have to do business in such a terrible way that lacks transparency, doesn't let people know what is in the bill, and doesn't let all 100 Senators contribute to the product? The reason is because our Democratic colleagues blocked those bills. I hope it is different this year because now those top-line numbers for discretionary spending are fixed in law. What we are trying to do, starting with the Energy and Water appropriations bill that Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein are working through the legislative process, is to begin the process of passing those regular appropriation bills. I hope and trust we will conclude with this piece of legislation this week and then we will move on to the next legislative vehicle, which will probably be the transportation, housing, and urban development legislation, the so-called THUD bill around here. We have actually demonstrated that by providing an open process, we can actually get some things done. We all recall last Congress--a year and a half ago. The fact of the matter is that a decision had been made by the then-majority leader, Senator Reid, not to allow Senators to participate in the amendment process on the floor. As a consequence, it wasn't just those of us in the minority who were prohibited from offering legislation that would actually improve the product that was on the floor, it included Members of his own political party. So they had to go home at election time and explain to their constituents back home: I may be in the majority, but I couldn't get an amendment voted on, on the Senate floor. Having learned from that experience, Senator McConnell and we decided that the best thing to do is to have an open process by which Members of the majority party and minority party, Democrats and Republicans alike--anybody who has a good idea--can come forward and get a vote on that legislation. We had a couple of recent bipartisan successes. Yes, I know in some corners ``bipartisanship'' is a dirty word, but the fact is, you can't get anything done around here unless it is bipartisan. Our Constitution was written in a way to force consensus to be built. In an absence of consensus, nothing gets done. So we have had a couple of recent successes, in addition to our work on appropriations bills, including the Energy Policy Modernization Act. One of the most important parts of that legislation from my perspective is that back in Texas we saw an expedited process for the approval of liquefied natural gas export terminals. That is very important to our economy and something that takes advantage of an incredible resource we have in America--natural gas--which we would like to sell to our allies and friends around the world when they don't have it. That is something that builds jobs in America. It helps grow our economy. It helps provide a lifeline to many of our allies around the world, for whom energy is being used simply as a weapon by people like Vladimir Putin. We also voted to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration bill. Obviously, this is important for public safety--to make sure our skies are safe--but also to provide the appropriate regulatory regime for the airline industry. Looked at individually, these bills may not seem like an end-all or be-all, but they are part of a bigger picture and part of a larger goal, which is getting this legislative body back to work again, as it was meant to do, considering and passing legislation that will impact our country for the better. Don't get me wrong. Sometimes the right answer is to stop bad ideas. Sometimes the right idea is to stop bad ideas, but where there is an opportunity for consensus and where we can actually craft something that helps move our country forward--I believe all 100 Senators came here with that sort of goal in mind. The bottom line is, we are working again to advance the priorities of the American people. In the same way we debate and discuss the Energy and Water appropriations bill, we have to keep the bigger picture in mind. It is not just about passing a single appropriations bill or to check items off our to-do list, it is part of a larger process, which is to fund the Federal Government in a fiscally responsible way, hopefully--that is our goal--and to make sure we review the programs that are funded by Federal appropriations and make sure they are still the priorities we believe they should be. If they aren't, then they shouldn't be funded. That is part of the process--to go back and look at what the programs are, whether they are still working, whether they are still necessary, and if they are not working or no longer necessary, then we simply no longer fund those as part of the appropriations process. We know this sets our country's priorities by giving guidance on everything we support--from our veterans to how we provide for our energy structure needs, to how we equip and train our troops. Funding the government is actually one of the most important and basic duties of the Congress. As the Senator from Tennessee has pointed out, one of the biggest problems we have--one we are not going to solve here today or this week, unfortunately--is that so much of the money that gets spent by the Federal Government is on autopilot--so-called mandatory spending. In other words, it is not even subject to the appropriations process in the Senate. Currently, only about one-third of the money the Federal Government spends actually goes through this sort of transparent and open process, where everybody knows what is going on and can offer their input. The rest of the money is spent on autopilot, and it is projected to rise, according to one recent projection I saw, at a rate of roughly 5.3 percent over the next 30 years. We know that is far beyond the rate of inflation, and it is an unsustainable amount of spending. Some of the most important programs that are government funded, such as Medicare or Social Security, cannot be sustained at the current level of spending unless we do everything we can within our ability to shore them up and save them for the next generation. That is what we actually need to be doing in the larger picture. Until that day, we can continue to do what we can to deal responsibly with discretionary spending, and that is what we are trying to do. If we don't deal with these appropriations bills in a methodical and deliberate sort of way--all 12 of them--we are going to find ourselves at the end of September, at the end of the fiscal year, back in the same situation we were in last year--with the need for an omnibus appropriations bill or a continuing resolution, which is something I know there is not a lot of appetite for. Zika Virus Mr. President, let me just say a word about the Zika virus and the emergency funding request made by the President. Some of our colleagues--notably the Democratic leader and the Democratic whip-- talked about this this morning and raised the question of whether we are going to responsibly deal with this threat of the Zika virus. I can tell my colleagues we will. We are committed on a bipartisan basis to try to make sure we respond responsibly both from a public safety point of view and from a fiscal point of view. The President requested $1.9 billion. Thankfully, there is money that has been identified that was left over from the Ebola threat--some $500 million--that can be used as a downpayment to make sure our world-class scientists, like the ones I have met at the University of Texas medical branch in Galveston and just this last week at the Texas Medical Center, are doing the research that is necessary in order to identify how to stop this threat by controlling the mosquitoes that bring it into the country. We know the mosquito that carries the Zika virus is common in more temperate and warmer parts of the country, and that is why it has been primarily a threat in Brazil and places like Haiti and Puerto Rico. We also know that in places like Texas, Florida, and Louisiana, this mosquito is present and there are already established cases of Zika, primarily occurring in, I believe, either people who have traveled to Central America or South America and who have been bitten and brought it back with them or, in the case of--apparently it has now been discovered that this virus can be sexually transmitted. So one of the things we need to make sure of, particularly for every woman of child-bearing age, is that they get the sort of protection they need so these horrific birth defects that we have seen in the news don't occur. We are all committed to doing that. We also ought to make sure we don't overshoot our goal and write a blank check for something when we don't even know what the plan of attack is. In some ways, this is like the President asking us to fund a war without telling us what his strategy is for fighting and winning that war. I think that is the sort of commonsense question our constituents want us to ask, and which we should ask. I realize not everything is knowable. Hopefully, within a couple of years, our scientific community will have developed a vaccine which can protect people from this virus, but in the meantime we need to continue to fund the basic research. We need to continue to fund at the local level the mosquito eradication, and we need to keep our eye on this emerging threat. We can do that, and we will do that in a responsible sort of way. We don't need our colleagues on the Democratic side to say we have to do it right here, right now, without even having a plan from the administration on how we will fight and win this war against the Zika virus and hold up the regular appropriations process. I can tell from the saber-rattling going on from some of my colleagues across the aisle that they are looking for a reason to disrupt the regular appropriations process and that can be a mistake. First of all, it will not accomplish anything that can't otherwise be accomplished in terms of funding our research and the fight against the Zika virus. We are committed to doing that in a bipartisan sort of way but in a responsible sort of way that doesn't add to the national debt and pass the bill on to the next generation, as well as a proportional response to the threat. Just throwing money at it without a plan does not seem like a responsible thing to do. I implore our colleagues across the aisle, do not try to use the Zika crisis to hold hostage our ability to do our regular appropriations work. It is too important to avoid the year-end Omnibus appropriations bill that nobody says they like, and it is important for us to demonstrate--as we have tried to and I believe succeeded in doing, in large part--that we can continue to do our work day in and day out on a bipartisan, responsible basis, not that we are all going to agree on everything--that is just not the way people are built--nor do they want us to agree on everything. This is the place where we have the great debates on the issues that confront our country, both now and in the future, and that is appropriate. Nobody should take it personally. We need to have those debates. We need to have those verbal confrontations so we can get to the truth and figure the best path forward for the country. So we are not here to kick the can down the road. We are here to do the Nation's business, and we are here to deliver results to the American people. I hope we can continue to do that by carefully discussing, debating, and then voting on all 12 appropriations bills. In addition to talking about how, I hope to explain a little bit of the why it is so important that we do this now in order to avoid that year-end rush to an omnibus appropriations bill later on. Mr. President, I don't see any other Senators seeking recognition, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), 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 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. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).

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

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 20, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a Subcommittee hearing entitled ``New Approaches and Innovative Technologies to Improve Water Supply.''