John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to turn to a topic that has concerned me a lot over the last year and troubles me more each day, and that is the use by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of an unsecured private email server while serving as our Nation's top diplomat. We have known about her private email server for a while now and the great lengths she has gone to avoid compliance with some pretty important laws that Congress has passed and that have been signed into law by the President of the United States. I believe transparency in government is very important in terms of building public confidence for what we are actually doing. That is why even when I was at the State level as Texas Attorney General, I was an avid supporter of open records and open meetings legislation so the public had access and saw their right to know honored. Here in Congress, since I have gotten here, I have been working closely with my ideological opposite, Senator Pat Leahy from Vermont, with him on the left end of the spectrum and me on the right end of the spectrum, but both agreeing that the public's right to know is so important when it comes to self-government and what the public doesn't know can hurt them. That is why when Lyndon Johnson signed the Freedom of Information Act into law, it passed with such broad support, and it continues to enjoy that kind of broad support today. It applies the principle of transparency and accountability, and in the process, it helps build confidence for what Congress is doing on the people's behalf. It is pretty clear that Secretary Clinton sought to evade those important laws by setting up this private email server. I know most people are familiar with the dot-com domains that we use perhaps at your home or my home, and we have the dot-gov domain, which is used by government agencies and the like. But then there is a dot- mil, which is used by the Department of Defense and is a classified system. There is actually another system that operates independently which carries the most sensitive classified information circulated by our intelligence community around the world. Those are important distinctions because those don't necessarily talk to each other. In fact, they are not connected to the Internet. The classified intelligence system server is not connected to the military classified system or to the dot-gov system and certainly not to the dot-com or the private email server. I have not heard another example of anybody who has been quite so careless--to use the President's term--or reckless--to use my term-- with how private email servers are used to conduct official business. There is a lot of risk associated with that. We know the former Secretary of State did delete tens of thousands of emails that were once on the server. In other words, she hadn't turned those over to the State Department to vet and determine whether they complied with court orders requiring the State Department to produce emails that were producible under the Freedom of Information Act. She just deleted them. We know that her emails contained classified information, some at very high levels of government classification. As many of our Nation's top security experts will tell you, it is likely that our adversaries had easy access to and monitored Secretary Clinton's unsecured server, as well as the sensitive communications that were contained on it. As Secretary of State, you are a member of the President's Cabinet. You are operating at the highest levels of classification with very sensitive information, and it is simply irresponsible to subject that information to the efforts by our Nation's adversaries to capture and read it and use it to their advantage. All of this should concern all of us. I am not just talking about the political ramifications. This is not primarily about politics. But Secretary Clinton's actions were such an extreme breach of the Nation's confidence, and they potentially gave away extremely sensitive information that put our national security in jeopardy, not to mention the lives of those who serve our country in the intelligence community and whose very identity may have been revealed by this very sensitive classified information. This is not a trivial matter. We need to treat this seriously, and the facts must be pursued in a thorough, impartial investigation. I know most people don't really believe there is such a thing as an impartial investigation here in Washington, DC, but there is a category of counsel that has been created by Congress to provide some measure of independence from the Department of Justice. That is called a special counsel. It is up to the Attorney General herself whether to appoint the special counsel when she recognizes that there is an apparent conflict of interest or at least an appearance of partiality that ought to be dealt with by the appointment of a special counsel. Given the unprecedented nature of this case and the unavoidable conflicts of interest, I strongly believe there is no other appropriate action for Attorney General Loretta Lynch to take than to appoint a special counsel in this case to get to the bottom of it, to follow the facts to wherever they may lead, and to make sure the law is applied impartially and fairly wherever those may fall. The American people were reminded of the need for a special counsel last weekend when, once again, President Obama opined publicly about the investigation. In an interview on Sunday, President Obama dismissed the email scandal by splitting hairs about how the government classifies information. According to the President--get this--``there's classified, and then there's classified'' information. He was attempting to draw meaningless distinctions between levels of classification, suggesting that release or exposure of some classified information was OK as long as it wasn't the ``classified'' information, which supposedly he would say should be kept from our Nation's adversaries and kept confidential. President Obama, in other words, was trying to indicate that even though classified information was on Secretary Clinton's private server, he somehow divined that it was not so sensitive that it would put our country in jeopardy. First of all, we know that some of Secretary Clinton's emails were classified even beyond confidential, to the secret and top secret special access program levels--some of the highest levels of classification. Second, the President's comments have to be confusing to many public servants around the country, who, as part of their daily work, handle classified information and the way they do it when they are issued a national security clearance or sign a nondisclosure agreement. According to the President, it must be OK to expose some classified information to public view but not others. I can guess that people who work in that world must be somewhat confused and perplexed by the President's statement. To dismissively talk about the different levels of classification is not only wrong but, frankly, it is insulting to Americans who work tirelessly on a daily basis to protect our national security and, in particular, to those who go to great lengths to properly and carefully handle classified information, even when it isn't particularly convenient. But perhaps worse, the President was opining publicly on the results of an ongoing criminal investigation over which it turns out he knows absolutely nothing--at least if you believe the key players in that investigation. Although he claims to adhere to a strict line between himself and the investigation, President Obama repeatedly suggests his desired outcome and acts as if he is Secretary Clinton's front line of defense. Here is President Obama in the same interview. He said that he ``continues to believe that [Secretary Clinton] has not jeopardized America's national security.'' How in the world could the President possibly know that if, in fact, there is a strict line between himself and the investigation? Attorney General Lynch has testified and stated in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee--and FBI Director Comey has likewise testified--that there has been no reporting to the White House about the results of the ongoing investigation. Everybody understands that would be improper, but somehow the President suggests it is all OK and that he knows, when, in fact, he doesn't know. How could the President possibly know that, especially when--as the President made clear last Sunday--he has not been ``sorting through each and every aspect'' of the issue? By the President's own admission, he doesn't talk to the Attorney General or the FBI Director about ongoing investigations, and he certainly isn't conducting it, so he wouldn't have personal knowledge. Under no circumstance is this kind of commentary by the President OK. There is simply no way to read this without running a serious risk of trying to influence the outcome of the investigation, which everybody should recognize would be completely improper. The President has done this before and so has his spokesman, the White House Press Secretary. Time and again the White House has projected its desired outcome in this investigation to the public and, worse, to those people conducting it. As I said, it is completely inappropriate, but don't just take it from me. As I mentioned a moment ago, last month the Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Attorney General Loretta Lynch. I conveyed to her at the time the need for a special counsel to investigate the case. At the hearing, Attorney General Lynch testified that it was her hope that everyone, including the White House, would stay silent when it comes to commenting on an ongoing investigation by the FBI. I couldn't agree with her more. The responsible thing for the President to do would be to say nothing, particularly if he knows nothing about the content of an ongoing criminal investigation. I wish the President would take the advice of his lawyer, the Attorney General of the United States, and respect her prerogative as the Nation's chief law enforcement officer and the reputation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Director Comey made it clear that the FBI does not care for politics. It doesn't play politics. In fact, the credibility and integrity of the FBI depends upon their not playing politics. So why is the President playing politics with law enforcement? Well, the threat of a President influencing an ongoing investigation intentionally or otherwise is not something we must just accept. What we need is an investigation that is as independent as possible. I hope the Attorney General, in light of the President's comments and his attempt to influence the investigation--I can think of no other reason he would say what he did--reconsiders her refusal to appoint a special counsel in this case. At the very least, I hope the President quits talking about a subject he knows nothing about, which is what the investigation is revealing, and let the Justice Department do its job without feeling the pressure that apparently the White House is attempting to impose on the FBI and the Department of Justice. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it may not look like it now, but we are actually making great progress in moving forward with a critical piece of legislation that would reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration and, in the process, make flying safer and more efficient for all of our citizens. Members across the aisle have worked together on this legislation, and I know we will have an important vote at 5:30 p.m. on Monday and hopefully be able to process some of the amendments that have been agreed upon by the managers of the bill, which are a part of the managers' package.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, while my friend from Connecticut is on the floor, let me say that I have been here long enough now to realize it is hard to change things with just a speech. Indeed, it is hard to change things by just voting up or down on bills. The way we actually solve problems is by trying to find consensus. I know the Senator from Connecticut and I have different views on the Second Amendment, and that may be because there are different views around the country based on our experiences and the culture in which we were raised. I realize that in urban areas, particularly in the Northeast, the idea of people being raised around guns as a sort of way of life for recreation and self-defense and the like is just not their experience, but in other parts of the country--where the Presiding Officer lives and where I live--it is, and people feel very strongly about their rights under the Second Amendment. There is a common ground here, and the Senator from Connecticut and I have talked about this, and that has to do with the mental health issue, where I hope we can find that consensus because as long as we are talking past each other, we are never going to resolve any of these issues, and I do think there is some common ground. In the end, a gun is an inanimate object. The fact is, if we continue to ignore the fact that mental illness is very often a factor in acts of gun violence, I think we are going to continue to talk past each other. As the Senator and I have discussed, I actually have a bill that I have introduced--the safer cities and mental health reform bill--which includes a provision allowing people like Adam Lanza's mother to go to court and get a civil court order that would mandate that Adam Lanza take his prescribed anti-psychotic drugs. I don't know in this instance if it would have changed the course of events, but I do know it would have given Adam Lanza's mother--whom he murdered, and he stole her guns and then killed these poor, innocent children at Sandy Hook--an additional tool and may have just possibly averted the tragedy. I know there are many families in America today who would welcome additional tools by which they could then help loved ones become compliant with their doctors' orders to take their medication and become productive people. There is a gentleman named Pete Earley whom I know the Senator knows and who has testified here often. He is a journalist, but he wrote a book called ``Crazy.'' It is a book about his son's experience, who had mental illness. It is not about his son. The title is not for his son. It is about the so-called system that fails people like Pete Earley's son because it doesn't provide the options they need in order to deal with their mental illness. So I do think there are ways we can work together, but as long as we just keep making speeches to our respective constituents back home, we are never going to do that. I know we are working on the mental health issue now, and I would just say to my colleague: I am more than happy to try to find some common ground on this issue because I do think we need to improve the background check system for people who are adjudicated mentally ill, such as the shooter at Virginia Tech. This was a failure of the current system, where the Virginia law did not require that this mental health adjudication be uploaded into the background check system and then this terrible tragedy occurred. There are things we can do to improve the current background check system. There are things we can do to arm parents and families with new tools to help their mentally ill loved ones and maybe, just maybe, change the course of some of these incidents of mass violence, which are a terrible tragedy. So I make that offer. I know the Senator is not ready to cosponsor my legislation as currently written, but I would invite him to take a copy of it, mark through in a pencil the things he doesn't like and can't live with and give me what he can live with, and then we can perhaps begin that conversation. I thank the Senator for listening. Bankruptcy, Not Bailouts Bill Mr. President, I came to speak on the FAA bill, the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill, but I first want to commend our colleagues in the House for passing some important legislation yesterday called the ``Bankruptcy, Not Bailouts'' bill--a bill that will put to rest once and for all the concept that it is somehow the taxpayers' responsibility to bail out financial institutions when they fail, putting our financial system in jeopardy. Of course, the idea of too big to fail was an unfair and, I think, an erroneous concept made part of the law in the Dodd-Frank legislation that prioritizes large financial institutions over the needs of American families. We need to do everything we can to protect taxpayers from having been called upon to bail out banks. We need to let banks go bankrupt and use existing laws to restructure their debt and then to get back on track. So this is actually a very important step in the right direction. I commend Chairman Hensarling in the House of Representatives for passing this important piece of legislation. It is similar to legislation that I have introduced here in the Senate with Senator Toomey, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, and I hope we can move forward soon. I have one other interjection on the whole idea of bankruptcy versus bailouts. I read in the press and I hear from some of our colleagues in the House that they think the bankruptcy laws are somehow a bailout. It is the antithesis of a bailout. It is the opposite of a bailout because what it does is it authorizes a court of law under established rules and laws to restructure the debt of the bankrupt person or business. In doing so, it allows them to get it behind them and then to get on and continue to live a productive life as an individual or to deal with a productive business if you are a business. But the idea that somehow taking advantage of the bankruptcy laws is a taxpayer bailout is flat wrong. I hope our colleagues in the House have the courage, particularly as we look at the Puerto Rico situation, to realize that at some point, unless we act in the House and the Senate to deal with the impending crisis in Puerto Rico, unless we act in advance of that crisis, we are going to be presented with an emergency situation, and we are going to be asked to bail out Puerto Rico using taxpayer dollars, and I want none of that. I think all of us who were here during the financial crisis in 2008 would say the same thing: We want none of that. So let's do our work, whether it is ending too big to fail for large financial institutions or dealing with the impending bankruptcy and financial crisis in Puerto Rico. Mr. President, to the topic of the day, for the past few days we have been working on this legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration. Chairman Thune of the Commerce Committee and his staff have been doing some good work and making a lot of progress toward completing the bill. I hope that cooperation continues and that we are able to conclude this legislation tomorrow. This legislation would do some very important things. It would streamline critical new investments in airport infrastructure and aviation safety to protect passengers and to help them get where they need to go more efficiently. It would also include the most comprehensive airline security reforms since President Obama took office. For example, it strengthens the vetting process for airport employees and addresses a growing number of cyber security threats facing aviation and air navigation system. Most important of all, it puts American consumers and safety first. It does so without raising taxes or adding fees to customers that feel like a tax. You may call it a fee. But if it costs money, it really doesn't feel any different than a tax. I would also like to point out the benefits to States like mine, Texas. It protects air traffic partnerships that supports dozens of Texas airports and directly responds to requests that I have gotten from Texas communities looking for new opportunities to improve regional air traffic management or expand service in order to meet demand--all crucial measures that help Texas communities move people and goods safely through airports. I have introduced an amendment to this legislation with the two Arizona Senators and the junior Senator from Nevada, Mr. Heller, that would do even more to help our ports of entry by strengthening public- private partnerships at air, land, and sea ports. The fact of the matter is that financial resources--money--is always in short supply, and rather than always coming back to the taxpayer and saying you need to pay more, what we need to do is become more creative. That is why public-private partnerships are important. Local communities are willing to join in a partnership with the Federal Government to deal with these critical infrastructure needs at land, air, and sea ports, and that is what this amendment would do. We have already seen in my State time and again how important these partnerships can be to help reduce wait times at ports of entry--at the land-based ports of entry such as Laredo, which is the largest land- based port of entry in the United States. If you have ever been there, you have seen the trucks stacked up coming from Mexico. There is important trade that goes on between our two countries that supports 6 million jobs in the United States alone. But these public-private partnerships have been very successful in helping to deal with our infrastructure needs. It is not just about convenience. It has an economic impact as well. I mentioned that the 6 million people who benefit because of their jobs depend on binational trade between the United States and Mexico. For example, according to one study, each minute a truck sits idle at the border waiting to come to the United States, even though they are legally authorized to come here to bring goods manufactured or produced in Mexico, more than $100 million in economic output is lost or forfeited. Let me say that again. For every minute a truck sits at the border because we don't have the infrastructure to process the truck into the United States, more than $100 million in economic output is lost or forfeited. So this amendment would authorize more of these partnerships, which would also facilitate staffing and better protect legitimate trade and travel and keep our economy running smoothly and keep jobs being created. I hope my colleagues will consider this amendment and vote to build on the success of similar programs in the past, both in Texas and across the country. I want to mention one last amendment, one introduced yesterday, as well, that would target the world's foremost sponsor of terrorism. That is the country of Iran. Mahan Air is Iran's largest commercial airline, and it has repeatedly played a role in exporting Iran's terrorism. We all know Iran as being the No. 1 state sponsor of international terrorism, and Mahan Air is one of the ways they export that terrorism. We might call Mahan Air ``Terrorist Airways.'' That would perhaps be more precise. It not only supports the efforts of the Quds Force, a special unit of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, but of another Iranian-backed terrorist group, Hezbollah. To put it simply, Mahan Air enables the reach of Iranian personnel and weapons throughout the Middle East, as well as Iran's proxies, as the regime continues unabated to undercut the interests of the United States and our allies in the Middle East, such as Israel. Unfortunately, today Mahan Air is working to expand its international operations now that the Obama administration has lifted sanctions as part of the misguided Iran nuclear deal. Mahan Air is expanding its operations and adding more international airports to its flight patterns, including several in Europe in an effort to increase its bottom line. Mahan Air's unfettered support of terrorism in the worst aspects of the Iranian regime should give us all pause. I am concerned about the security risks of Americans who fly in and out of the same airports serviced by a Mahan Air aircraft. My amendment would require the Department of Homeland Security to compile and make public a list of airports where Mahan Air has recently landed. I think the public has a right to know that the airports they are flying into are being used to service an airline of the Iranian Government used to export terrorism. It would also require the Department of Homeland Security to assess what added security measures are needed. We must protect our country and our citizens from an airline that is complicit in terrorist activity. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this commonsense amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill to help shine a light on this bad actor. I will close with this. Under new leadership, the 114th Congress has actually gotten the Senate back to work again. It is not just for the benefit of the majority party. It is not just for the benefit of the minority party. It is actually for the benefit of the constituents we serve, because they are the ones who benefit when we can try to work and find common ground and move legislation forward where we can find agreement, knowing that there are many areas where we will never find agreement because of fundamental principle differences of opinion. But this is another example of an important piece of legislation that will benefit the entire country. It definitely isn't a partisan piece of legislation. So it is something I am glad we have been able to move forward on, and I look forward to concluding this legislation tomorrow. It is time we upgrade our air transportation system for the entire country, and it is time to put the safety of airline customers first. This bill does that. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today is Equal Pay Day. I am proud of the fact that one of our Members on this side of the aisle, Senator Deb Fischer, is taking the lead and pointing out that this is not a partisan issue. I know people find that hard to believe here in Washington, where everything seems like a partisan issue, but the fact is, both Republicans and Democrats and the unaffiliated believe that people who perform the same work ought to be compensated in the same way. So I am proud of the work Senator Fischer is doing. I just wanted to make note of the fact that this is Equal Pay Day. I know some of our colleagues across the aisle maybe have a different view and think they have a better way to deal with this, but it is purely a difference in tactics, not in terms of goals, which is equal pay for equal work. National Crime Victims' Rights Week Mr. President, yesterday I spoke about the fact that this is also Crime Victims' Week, and that is what I want to talk about now a little bit more. There are a lot of people who come to Washington--big companies, people can hire lobbyists, lawyers, accountants, other experts--to try to make their case to Congress, but we don't have a crime victims' lobby per se. We have organizations--volunteer organizations, by and large--that try and provide a voice to the voiceless and people who need to be represented here, but the fact is, by listening to those victims of crime and to those who volunteer to help them here in the Nation's Capital, we can make a big difference in the lives of crime victims in this country. I highlighted the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act as an example of what we can accomplish when we get past the partisan talking points and instead focus on a common goal. I pointed out that legislation, which is the most--I think the major--the most significant human trafficking legislation passed in the last 25 years, actually broke important ground. It uses the penalties and the fines paid by people on the purchasing side of the sex slave trade to be able to fund the resources to help heal the victims, typically a girl the age of 12 to 14, somebody who has maybe run away from home, who thinks maybe they have fallen in love with somebody new, only to find themselves trapped in modern-day human slavery. We were able to pass that legislation by a vote of 99 to 0 in the Senate, and now it is the law of the land. I mentioned yesterday that some of the provisions, including the hero program, which was designed to provide incentives for returning veterans of the gulf war, Iraq, and Afghanistan--some of them bearing the wounds of those wars--to be able to use the skills they have acquired in the military to help go after child predators and other people who would take advantage of the most vulnerable in our society. But I wish to talk about another opportunity where I believe Congress can come together to rally behind victims and move legislation that could help save lives. On the first day of December 2013, Kari Hunt Dunn brought her three young children to a hotel in Marshall, TX, a city east of Dallas near the border with Louisiana, to visit with her estranged husband. Sadly, this visit turned into tragedy. According to reports, Kari's estranged husband started to attack her and while he did, one of Kari's daughters did what her parents and family taught her to do in an emergency, which is to dial 911. She called for help repeatedly, but she didn't realize that, as in many hotels, first you need to dial 9 before you can dial out. So she kept dialing 911 to no avail, not recognizing that she needed to dial 9 to get an outside line. By the time help finally arrived, Kari was unresponsive and later died, leaving her three young children behind. Obviously this is a terrible, heart-wrenching story, and I wish I could say it was an isolated event, but it is made that much more tragic because the family will never know what the outcome might have been had that first 911 call actually made its way to the proper authorities. Following her death, Kari's father Hank decided he had to do something to correct the problem so tragedies like this could hopefully become a thing of the past. This is where we have a role to play. I know some people might say: Well, there are a lot more important things for Congress to be doing than dealing with this issue, but this is something we can do. It is not partisan, and we should do it on an expedited basis. So earlier this year, I joined with several of my colleagues, including the senior Senators from Nebraska and Minnesota, to introduce legislation called Kari's Law, a bipartisan bill that already has a companion in the House. This legislation builds on a law passed last year by the Texas legislature, and several other States have followed suit as well. Before us we have a clearer, albeit a discrete, problem, and we have an obvious solution. This bill would ensure that people have the ability to directly call 911, even in hotels and office buildings, without having to dial an extra number. By making this simple change, we can ensure that children, like Kari's daughter, can make the call for help, to call for the assistance of law enforcement and emergency personnel to save valuable time that can make the difference between life and death and the prevention of another tragedy. We should follow the example of States like Texas that have already done this. We could do this on a national basis. We know there are lives at stake, like Kari's, and I believe we have an obligation to act to keep tragedies like Kari's from happening again. So as we continue to look for ways to better support victims of crime this week, I hope we will take another small step to help victims by advancing this legislation. In so many instances, they are what seem like small steps that can have tremendous ramifications. I mentioned yesterday the reforms we have been able to do in terms of testing the rape kit backlog. It had been reported that as many as 400,000 untested rape kits are sitting in evidence lockers in police stations or perhaps in labs untested, and I talked a little bit about the fact that in Houston alone, thanks to the leadership of the then mayor and the city council, working with State and Federal authorities, they were able to eliminate the rape kit backlog testing and come up with 850 hits on the database that showed there were individuals whose DNA was tested and located on this forensic evidence that was already in this FBI background database known as CODIS. There are things we can do that may seem small but can have a dramatic impact on the lives of our constituents. So I suggest that we don't give up and we continue to do what we can, where we can, when we can, and passing Kari's Law would be another important step in that direction. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week the Senate is continuing its consideration of the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration and bringing important improvements in terms of aviation infrastructure and public safety. I am glad the Senate voted-- notwithstanding the impression I think people get from the outside that all we do is bicker and we don't actually solve any problems. I am glad the Senate has worked in a bipartisan way to move this legislation forward. We have a lot of heavy lifting left to do on this legislation this week, and none of these issues is easy, but it is important we do everything we can to demonstrate to the American people that our interests are their interests in moving bipartisan solutions forward for their benefit. National Crime Victims' Rights Week Mr. President, I wish to just take a moment and point out that this week is also a very important week because it is National Crime Victims' Rights Week. Too often crime victims in our country aren't treated with the fairness and respect they deserve. So often it seems as though we focus our attention on those who commit the crime and not nearly enough on those who are victims of crime they had no part in instigating but perhaps happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. When we don't show the proper respect for victims of crime, it can lead to distrust in our communities between law enforcement and the public, and it can make our country a more dangerous place. The fact is, our law enforcement professionals work best with community cooperation. Frequently, the community can be the eyes and the ears for law enforcement and help give them information they need in order to prevent crime from occurring in the first place or to make a show of force to in fact deter the commission of a crime. When I was Texas attorney general, I had the privilege of overseeing our State's Crime Victims' Compensation Fund. This is an idea which said we ought to take the fines and the penalties from people who commit crimes and then use those funds to make grants to the victims of crime and the people who attempt to help them heal and recover from the consequences. Time and time again, I saw that when we don't support the victims of crime, they and their families aren't the only ones who suffer. It can also impede law enforcement efforts when they feel this disjuncture or disconnection between the victims and the law enforcement professionals. So it is important for many reasons--out of basic fairness and compassion but also in the interests of law enforcement, generally, to make sure we do everything we can to keep law enforcement and the victims of crime on the same page and the communities in which they reside. We need to continually look for ways to improve our support for crime victims. One way we can do this is by continuing assistance to State and local governments in a variety of ways. We recently had a hearing on the intersection of mental illness and law enforcement. Unfortunately, in our society today--because of the deinstitutionalization of people with mental illness, with no safety net to take its place--many people who suffer from mental illness are residing in our jails, filling our emergency rooms, or simply living on our streets. So we need to redirect more than just the 1 percent of funds currently directed by the Federal Government to State and local law enforcement for support and training. We need to redirect more of that in a targeted fashion to deal with this crisis in mental illness. Here is an anecdote. Recently, I had the chance to meet with some members of the Major County Sheriffs' Association. The sheriff of Bexar County, TX, a friend of mine, said: How would you like to meet the largest mental health provider in the United States? I said: Well, sure. Who is that? She said: Meet the sheriff of Los Angeles County. This made a deep impression on me, and it tells me we still have a lot to do. Another example of where the Federal Government can play an appropriate support role for local and State law enforcement--and I am not suggesting the Federal Government take over State and local law enforcement, far from it. Rather, the Federal Government should recognize and support the important role that local and State law enforcement play and provide that support, where possible, here at the Federal level. Nowhere else have I found that more important recently than our efforts to try to audit and test the massive nationwide rape kit backlog. It has been estimated there are 400,000 rape kits collected from the forensic evidence from sexual assaults that remain untested. We know these rape kits contain vital DNA evidence that can put criminals behind bars, exonerate the falsely accused, and help detect those who commit crimes serially--not just once but over and over and over again until they are ultimately caught. As we know, many communities at the local level simply do not have the resources or expertise to test these rape kits in a timely fashion, so that is an area where we can help. That means that while evidence is collecting dust on a shelf for years, criminals will remain loose--unless we continue to act--and make it impossible for the victims of these crimes to find closure. I will give just one example. Last year Houston had a backlog of thousands of rape kits going back into the 1980s. Fortunately, due to resources provided by the Federal Government under the Debbie Smith Act, and with the determination of the local leadership, Mayor Annise Parker, the city of Houston, began to work with the State of Texas and the Federal Government to eliminate Houston's rape kit backlog. So far they have tested thousands of rape kits, resulting in 850 CODIS matches. That is the DNA check system run by the FBI, where when people have been arrested for offenses in the past, their DNA information is recorded in this data base and then can be matched against that collected in a rape kit or other forensic evidence. So just as a result of the city of Houston undertaking this massive effort--again, with the cooperation of the State and Federal Government--to eliminate its rape kit backlog, they have gotten 850 hits in the CODIS system. In other words, by testing the evidence they already had, Houston officials have been able to identify hundreds of people who are perpetrators of crime--because the DNA evidence does not lie--and to place them at the scene of a crime. Again, as we find out, sadly, people who commit sexual assaults frequently don't do it just once in their life. Many of them do it serially or until they get caught, looking for victims of opportunity--sometimes even children. It is terrible. Fortunately, with the tools and resources provided by the Debbie Smith Act and something called the SAFER Act, Houston will complete the testing of all backlogged rape kits this year. This is important because in the past, testing of these rape kits was viewed as mainly a way of just confirming the identity of the assailant using DNA evidence, but frequently the identity of the assailant is not an issue in these cases, and it is expensive to test rape kits. Frequently, the assailant is known and the question is one of consent or nonconsent. What we have found is by testing more rape kits--even where the issue of identity is not in question--we can literally tie these defendants in criminal cases to other sexual assaults in a way that is a pretty powerful and pretty revolutionary way. I am proud of the work Houston and the State of Texas are doing, working with the Federal Government, to end the rape kit backlog, but it is going to take a lot more work from us on an ongoing and long-term basis because, first, one of the things we need to do, which Congress has already required, is an audit to make sure we know where all of these rape kits are--whether they are sitting in an evidence locker or whether they are still sitting in a police station in an investigation locker. We need to make sure there is an audit done so we can get our arms around the size and scope of the problem. Then we need to redirect more of the resources the Federal Government has already appropriated money for under the Debbie Smith Act to actually test these rape kits. This is very important because we need the survivors of sexual assault to know we continue to stand with them in their fight. Thank goodness for brave women such as Debbie Smith and so many others whom I have met along the way who I think demonstrate not only their own courage but also give other people courage to stand up for their own rights when they are, through no fault of their own, victims of sexual assault. The Crime Victims' Rights Week is more than just about this crime of sexual assault. It is about respect for all victims of crime. That is why I am proud to be working with the senior Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, and Congressman Ted Poe of Houston, TX, on the Justice for All Reauthorization Act. This is comprehensive legislation to increase rights and protections for crime victims across the country. It will reauthorize the landmark Justice for All Act signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2004. As part of the reauthorization, it will also increase the collection of compensation and restitution for crime victims, it will protect the housing rights of domestic violence victims, and it will strengthen the forensic sciences to swiftly put criminals behind bars and to improve the integrity of the forensic testing. Frequently, we know that both the expertise and the equipment used by local governments and law enforcement are sometimes pretty spotty. In order to maintain the integrity of this important and powerful type of evidence, it is very importants we provide some guidance--perhaps best practices--for forensic sciences. We have the ability to do that because of the resources of the Federal Government; again, not to commander or mandate but basically to help local and State governments improve their forensic sciences and their testing. This legislation will also improve access to legal and health care resources for all victims and will ensure that we are efficiently providing direct services for crime victims on a national basis. This legislation is supported by more than 130 different law enforcement and victim advocacy organizations nationwide, including the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network--the so-called RAINN organization--the National District Attorneys Association, the National Center for Victims of Crime, the International Union of Police Organizations, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, and the National Organization for Women. It is a pretty broad spectrum of organizations along the political or ideological spectrum, and they are all unified in supporting this important bill. This Chamber has done what it takes to help victims in the past, and we should continue to build on the legacy of legislation like the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, a law that is already making a clear difference in the lives of victims across the country. One of the best moments in this Chamber last year was when we passed the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act by a vote of 99 to 0. It was a rare and welcomed coming together of all Members, from all different parts of the country, all across the ideological spectrum, to enact the most important assistance for victims of human trafficking that we have done in basically 25 years, providing for something as basic as shelter for victims of human trafficking, when many of them had nowhere to live or to turn. One of the important pieces of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act was something called the HERO Program. This was primarily inserted into the legislation at the request of the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Mark Kirk, a veteran of the U.S. Navy himself. Just yesterday, the Army Times ran a story on a program that was permanently authorized under the bill known as HERO, which trains veterans to work alongside Federal law enforcement officials to go after child predators--in other words, using some of the expertise the veterans acquired in their training and their service in the military to help victims of child pornography and the predation, unfortunately, that happens too often on the most innocent. So far, according to this article, the program has already trained about 80 different veterans with plans to train 40 more this year, giving many of these veterans--some of whom have been seriously injured during the course of their military service--a real purpose in life. Indeed, in the Army Times story I mentioned just a moment ago, there are some heartrending, touching stories about how, even for people who suffered very traumatic injuries during their military service, this gives them a new sense of purpose and focus, and it is very, very encouraging. I had the chance to see the HERO program in action last year in San Antonio, and it is protecting our children and taking criminals off the street. It is pretty clear that when we set our minds to it, we can make a difference in the lives of crime victims. We proved that with the passage of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, and we can do it again. I encourage all of our colleagues to consider supporting the Justice for All Reauthorization Act. This is a bicameral, bipartisan proposal that would help victims get the support they need and they deserve. As advocates and survivors across the country use this week to highlight the needs of millions of crime victims, let's also remember that we have a responsibility and an opportunity to do something about it right here in this Chamber. Mr. President, I don't see anyone interested in recognition, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, last Saturday marked the 1-year anniversary of the Obama administration's deal with Iran, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. This is the nuclear deal with Iran that officially went into effect last October. Briefly summarized, in exchange for billions of dollars in near-term and long-term sanctions relief, Iran made some very modest nuclear concessions--and that is if you believe the inspection regime is not fundamentally flawed, which I do not believe. So instead of trust and verify, we can't even verify Iran is complying with the terms of the agreement. Indeed, I think we can pretty much be guaranteed that Iran will do its dead-level best to cheat. To make matters worse, the administration all but admitted the deal wasn't going to stop Iran from exporting terrorism--which is the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world--or violating the human rights of its own citizens or advancing its ballistic missile program. We have seen a lot of evidence of that recently. All of these major bipartisan concerns were highlighted by Congress but totally ignored by the administration. President Obama himself warned that ``this deal is not''--is not--``contingent on Iran changing its behavior. That is the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, the Commander in Chief. The President of the United States said: ``This deal is not contingent on Iran changing its behavior.'' Unbelievable and outrageous. My concerns with this agreement have done nothing but grow ever since the deal was done, and Iran continues to prove it was not negotiating in good faith--to the contrary, that it was negotiating in bad faith and would take every advantage it could to advance its nuclear ambitions and to continue its state sponsorship of global terrorism. Iran is still working to undercut the United States and its priorities in the Middle East by fueling proxy wars in the region in places such as Iraq, Yemen, and Syria. The administration has even made clear that it knew the money that was released as a result of the sanctions relief--that it knew--that the tens of billions of dollars of intermediate sanctions relief going to Iran would be funneled to terrorist groups across the Middle East. So we have an unverifiable deal, and we have money going to finance terrorism. What is not to love about that? That is the administration's attitude. In fact, earlier this week it was reported that the U.S. Navy--the U.S. Navy--for the third time in just 2 months intercepted an Iranian shipment of weapons in the Arabian Sea believed to be headed from Iran to rebel groups in Yemen. One has to wonder how Iran paid for those weapons. Well, one logical explanation would be perhaps with the sanctions relief authorized by the President's misbegotten deal with Iran. That was a huge cash infusion. It is only logical to believe that Iran used that money to pay for the weapons they were then trying to ship to the rebels in Yemen. And, of course, as we have seen recently, the deal certainly didn't keep Iran's Revolutionary Guard from test-firing ballistic missiles. The fact is, the Iranian nuclear deal is not worth the paper it is written on. I hope the next President will rip it to shreds day one in office and give it the sort of respect that it has really earned. Unfortunately, Iran serves as just one of the many examples of how the administration's rudderless strategy is advancing America's interests in the complex world we are living in. On President Obama's watch, the United States has methodically ceded our irreplaceable leadership role throughout the world. This is most evident in the Middle East--a caldron of violence and instability. In Syria, we don't see the JV team that President Obama referred to in ISIS. We see an emboldened terrorist group that exports death and destruction to our allies in cities such as Paris and Brussels, with the intention to do the same thing right here in the United States, anywhere and everywhere they can, including places such as Garland, TX, where thankfully an alert security guard was able to thwart two ISIS- inspired terrorists from killing innocent civilians. In Iraq, where Americans spent their treasure and spilled their blood to bring relative peace and stability just a few short years ago, we now find complete chaos. President Obama's precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq helped turn the region back into a powder keg. Much like the Obama administration's promised redline on chemical weapons in Syria, the border between Syria and Iraq has literally been erased. It doesn't exist anymore. As the Obama administration has stood by, today the black flag of ISIS flies high over places such as Mosul and Fallujah. We all know that ISIS has carved out a safe haven in the heart of the Middle East, while Syria has plunged deeper and deeper into civil war and chaos. Millions of people have become displaced as refugees, both internally in Syria and in surrounding countries, causing further instability in the region. And now, of course, we are seeing them not only in refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon, but escaping to Europe and creating huge challenges for the governments in Europe. That is not even to mention the hundreds of thousands of Syrians who have lost their lives in this civil war while the world has stood back and by and large watched with negligible strategy or effort to try to change the outcome. What is the result? Well, beyond this hard reality, this sends a message to our allies and our adversaries. Our allies are questioning our commitment and our reliability. Our adversaries are interpreting our lack of strategy and action as weakness and opportunity. Israel, along with several of our gulf partners, has found a White House that repeatedly seems to care more about the interests of our common enemy than Israel's security interests. In Europe, North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries--NATO countries--question our dedication and commitment to transatlantic peace and prosperity as Russia prowls at their back door. Our adversaries have noticed. They have been emboldened by the lack of American leadership and strategy, and they have taken full advantage. This administration's abdication of leadership has allowed China to grow more belligerent in the Asia-Pacific; North Korea to test what they claim is a hydrogen bomb and to threaten our allies, such as South Korea and Japan; and Russia to quickly fill the leadership vacuum left by the United States in Europe and the Middle East. If we had any doubt about it, once again we have learned a hard lesson, and that is, weakness is itself a provocation. Weakness is a provocation. What this world needs, what America needs, is leadership and a strategic vision that doesn't just respond to every crisis on an ad hoc basis. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers gave the Congress some tools to be able to help when the Chief Executive of the country seems to be without any particular direction or without a particular strategy. The Senate can play an active role in holding the administration accountable and putting forth a strategy to help keep us safe. For example, yesterday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing to discuss Iran's recent transgressions. I am glad the chairman of that committee, Senator Corker, and the ranking member, Senator Cardin, are working together on a bipartisan basis on legislation to levy more comprehensive sanctions on the Iranian regime to make up for what should have been done in the Iran nuclear deal but was essentially ignored. The administration had consciously decided to ignore Iran's role as a state sponsor of terrorism and decided we are just going to try to deal with the Iranian nuclear aspirations and not the terrorism aspirations. In doing so, I think they literally failed on both counts. They not only created a testing regime that can't actually verify when Iran is cheating, but at the same time they have unleashed tens of billions of dollars to help finance terrorist activity. The administration has made clear that it simply doesn't have much interest in holding Iran accountable. They seem now absolutely nervous about doing anything that Iran might use as an excuse to walk away from the nuclear deal, which they could do on a moment's notice, meanwhile keeping the benefits they have already gotten from this deal; namely, the billions of dollars in sanctions relief. I hope the Senate will move forward on this legislation soon. Our allies and our friends need to know that if the President will not stand by them and challenge our adversaries, Congress will. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 5, 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 Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 5, 2016, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Assessing the Effects of Consumer Finance Regulations.''

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 5, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 5, 2016, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Recent Iranian Actions and Implementation of the Nuclear Deal.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 5, 2016, at 2:15 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Section 5 and `Unfair Methods of Competition': Protecting Competition or Increasing Uncertainty?''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 5, 2016, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 5, 2016, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Terror in Europe: Safeguarding U.S. Citizens at Home and Abroad.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 5, 2016, at 2:30 p.m.

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 5, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Hart Senate Office Building.