John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as the world now knows, this morning President Obama nominated his choice to fill the vacant seat created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. In doing so, the President exercised his unquestioned authority under the Constitution to nominate somebody to this vacancy, but that same Constitution reserves to the U.S. Senate--and the U.S. Senate alone--the right to either grant or withhold consent to that nominee. It is the same Constitution. They can't argue that the President somehow has an unquestioned right to see his nominee rubberstamped by the Senate and still show fidelity and honor to the same Constitution that gives him that authority to make that nomination. At this time, I reaffirm my commitment to share with other members of our conference that the President--this President--will not fill this vacancy. The Senate will not confirm this nominee to this vacancy. In so doing, we will follow the same rule book that Democrats have advocated for in the past. It can't be that one set of rules apply to a Democratic President and a second set of rules apply when there is a Republican President. This isn't just about speculating what Democrats might do were the shoe on the other foot and we had a Republican President because they have told us what they would do--they have done this since 1992--and in many ways they have kept their promise. There is a lot at stake. Justice Scalia served for 30 years on the U.S. Supreme Court. The next Justice could well change the ideological makeup and the balance of the Supreme Court for a generation to come and fundamentally reshape America as we know it. At this critical juncture in our Nation's history, and particularly with regard to the judiciary and the highest Court in the land, the American people deserve a chance to have a say in the selection of the next lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, and the only way to empower the American people and ensure they have that voice is for the next President to fill the nomination created by this vacancy. I have heard some people say that we had that election in 2012, when President Obama was elected, but I would say that you are half right. We also had another election in 2014, where the American people gave Republicans a majority in the U.S. Senate because they saw what happened when this President didn't have any checks and balances. We saw this during the beginning of his term of office when ObamaCare was passed by a purely partisan vote. We saw it when Dodd-Frank was passed--again, by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. So, in 2014, the American people said to President Obama: We want an effective check on Presidential power--and that is what the American people got. We can't just look at the one side of the equation--the President's authority under the Constitution--and the fact that the President was reelected in 2012. We have to look at what happened in 2014 and the constitutional prerogative of the U.S. Senate either to grant or to withhold the confirmation. Our National Debt Madam President, later today the Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing addressing America's impending fiscal crisis, including some potential solutions to help reverse the unsustainable course we are on. I know we don't hear very much about it here in Washington. This seems to be ``people walking by the graveyard,'' so to speak, regarding the fact that our national debt hit $19 trillion for the first time ever. This means our debt climbed more than $1 trillion in a little over a year. In fact, this is a shocking statistic that we will not read about in most of the mainstream media. The national debt has roughly doubled-- roughly doubled--since President Obama took office a little over 7 years ago. The Congressional Budget Office projects that for the fiscal year 2016, spending will reach $3.9 trillion, an increase of $232 billion from the previous year. I know that when we are talking about trillions and billions of dollars, it boggles the imagination. Most of us can't even conceive of numbers that large, but the fact is, when you borrow money, you have to pay it back at some point. Frankly, what I worry most about is that my generation is not going to be the one to repay the money we borrow. It is going to be the next generation. I know a lot of parents and grandparents worry about whether the American dream will still be alive and available to the next generation and beyond. This is a huge moral lapse on the part of the current generation, to not pay our own debts and to not come up with a system or a framework by which to begin that process. Rather than addressing this problem head on, government spending is set to remain high over the coming decade, even with the discretionary spending caps and sequester put in place by the Budget Control Act. Inside the beltway, people talk a lot about sequester and the Budget Control Act, but that is only 30 percent of Federal spending. Seventy percent of Federal spending is on autopilot, growing in some cases by a rate of 70 percent or more a year. Not addressing this is irresponsible, it is dangerous, and it also limits the choices available were our country to become embroiled in another fiscal crisis like we saw in 2008. If we ask our national security experts--former Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff ADM Mike Mullen said the No. 1 security threat to the United States was the debt. That shocked me a little bit when I heard him say that, but what he meant--and I know it to be true--is that more and more of the tax dollars the Federal Government receives are going to be paid to the bondholders who own that debt--the Chinese and other people around the world. We have to pay the interest on the debt if we are going to borrow the money, but more and more the spending decisions will be taken out of the hands of the elected representatives of the American people and simply be left up to the accountants who say: OK. You have accrued this much debt. Here is the interest that needs to be paid on that debt to the bondholders, and there is not going to be enough money left over to protect the national security of the United States of America. We have already seen our military on a dangerous trajectory potentially leading to the smallest Army since World War II. We tried to deal with some of that just last fall to begin to reverse some of this because frankly this was no longer a matter of just cutting superficial cuts. These were into the muscle and the bone of what makes up our national security structure, and we know what happened too. Our friends on the other side said: If you want to spend more money to protect this country with national security spending, then we are going to demand dollar-for-dollar more spending on nondefense, discretionary spending. That is why we ended up with the deal we ended up with. I have found it very frustrating in my time in the Senate how many of our colleagues will talk about this issue, but I have to be honest, the ones who frustrate me the most are the ones who will not talk about it at all, to even acknowledge the fact. We need to have a conversation, and more than that we need to have a commitment and we need to have a goal when it comes to dealing with this national debt and runaway spending. Our Democratic friends apparently share the same philosophy as the current President to create a tax-and-spend agenda without considering the long-term ramifications to job creation, the economy, not to mention our children and grandchildren. I am glad to say this side of the aisle has tried to do what I described earlier, which is to take a responsible position on embracing a policy which would help us to pay down the debt, deal with this in a fiscally responsible way, and allow us to get our books back in good order. We are going to take up this matter before the Senate Judiciary Committee today. We will be discussing reining in spending and making progress on the debt, including an amendment to the United States Constitution that would require a balanced budget. I can hear it now--because I have heard it before--some of our colleagues across the aisle saying: Heaven forbid. We can't amend the Constitution. Well, we have done it 27 times. Now, we don't do it willy-nilly. We don't do it for small things, but for something like this, it may well be required. Frankly, this is one of the most important lessons of economics that all of us who have children have tried to teach our children, which is you don't spend money that you don't have--well, I guess, unless you are the Federal Government and you can print it or you can borrow it, but at some point the birds come home to roost. Of course, our commitment to commonsense spending goes far beyond today's hearing on the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Many will recall that folks on this side of the aisle highlighted gimmicks in the discretionary budget process that only hide the real cost and don't actually reduce spending. There are a lot of shell games that go on here in Washington, DC. I am glad our budget amendment last year focused on bringing stunts like those to an end and placed a limit on their use in the appropriations process. Most recently, we used reconciliation through the budget process to keep our promise to vote to repeal ObamaCare--a law that has been burdening American families and businesses with higher taxes and mandates, while failing to contain premiums and financial losses on the exchanges. But instead of offering solutions to our growing debt, many of our Democratic colleagues are content to sit back and criticize those of us who are trying to come up with a solution to address this problem: how to safeguard our Nation's fiscal health. They argue that a balanced budget amendment isn't feasible or that certain government programs are so essential that we have to up their funding at the expense of the taxpayer, or they act as if the debt isn't a problem, or if it is a problem, that all they will do is raise taxes enough to try to balance the budget. You can't do that. You cannot raise taxes high enough on the American people to pay off $19 trillion in debt. Those aren't solutions; those are talking points. They don't help the American people make ends meet, and they don't help the U.S. Government live within its means. So I would like to ask, what are the Democratic solutions to our national debt? We are going to ask that question this afternoon. We are going to have some expert witnesses offer a number of suggestions. Then we are going to ask our friends across the aisle, what is your solution? I hope we hear more than just crickets or criticism that what we are proposing simply will not work. I know my colleagues and I would welcome constructive input and serious, good-faith proposals to stem the burgeoning national debt, but until then, our friends across the aisle need to do more than sit on their hands or just whistle past the graveyard of this impending national disaster. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank Senator Leahy for that clarification and agree with his remarks. If there is any doubt as to how to interpret the provisions of this bill, they should be interpreted to promote, not detract, from the central purpose of the bill which is to promote the disclosure of government information to the American people. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 17, S. 337.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Cornyn substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to thank my colleague, the Senator from Vermont, for being together with me on what some people would regard as the Senate's odd couple--people with very different views on a lot of different things but who try to work together on legislation such as this, freedom of information reform legislation, but I can think of others that we worked on as well, such as patent reform and criminal justice reform. I think most people are a little bit surprised when they see us fighting like cats and dogs on various topics, which we will--and those fights are important when they are based on principle--I think they are a little bit surprised when they see us then come together and try to find common cause, common ground on things such as this, but this is the sort of thing that makes the Senate work. This is the sort of thing that the American people deserve, when Republicans and Democrats, people all along the ideological spectrum, work together to find common ground. I couldn't agree with the Senator more about, really, a statement of human nature. It is only human nature to try to hide your failures and to trumpet your successes. It is nothing more, nothing less than that. But what the Freedom of Information Act is premised on is the public's right to know what their government is doing on their behalf. I know some people might think, well, for somebody who is a conservative, this is a little bit of an odd position. Actually, I think it is a natural fit. If you are a conservative like me, you think that the government doesn't have the answer to all the challenges that face our country, that sometimes, as Justice Brandeis said, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Indeed, I know something else about human nature: that people act differently when they know others are watching than they do when they think they are in private and no one can see what they are doing. It is just human nature. So I have worked together with Mr. Leahy, the Senator from Vermont, repeatedly to try to advance reforms of our freedom of information laws, and I am glad to say that today we will have another milestone in that very productive, bipartisan relationship on such an important topic. This is Sunshine Week, a week created to highlight the need for more transparent and open government. Let me mention a couple of things this bill does. It will, of course, as we said, strengthen the existing Freedom of Information Act by creating a presumption of openness. It shouldn't be incumbent on an American citizen asking for information from their own government-- information generated and maintained at taxpayer expense--they shouldn't have to come in and prove something to be able to get access to something that is theirs in the first place. Now, there may be good reason--classified information necessary to fight our Nation's adversaries, maybe personally private information that is really not the business of government, but if it is, in fact, government information bought for and maintained by the taxpayer, then there ought to be a presumption of openness. This legislation will, in other words, build on what our Founding Fathers recognized hundreds of years ago: that a truly democratic system depends on an informed citizenry to hold their leaders accountable. And in a form of government that depends for its very legitimacy on the consent of the governed, the simple point is, if the public doesn't know what government is doing, how can they consent? So this is also about adding additional legitimacy to what government is doing on behalf of the American people. I just want to again thank the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We had a pretty productive couple of weeks with passage of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which the Presiding Officer was very involved in, and now passage of this legislation by, I hope, unanimous consent. Presumption of Openness

Mr. CORNYN. I thank Senator Leahy for his remarks and for working together on this important bill. This bill is a good example of the bipartisan work the Senate can accomplish when we work together toward a common goal. I agree with Senator Leahy that the crux of our bill is to promote disclosure of government information and not to bolster new arguments in favor of withholding documents under FOIA's statutory exemptions. I want to clarify a key aspect of this legislation. The FOIA Improvement Act makes an important change to exemption (b)(5). Exemption (b)(5) permits agencies to withhold documents covered by litigation privileges, such as the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, and the deliberative process privilege, from disclosure. Our bill amends exemption (b)(5) to impose a 25-year sunset for documents withheld under the deliberative process privilege. This should not be read to raise an inference that the deliberative process privilege is somehow heightened or strengthened as a basis for withholding before the 25-year sunset. This provision of the bill is simply meant to effectuate the release of documents withheld under the deliberative process privilege after 25 years when passage of time undoubtedly dulls the rationale for withholding information under this exemption.

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Presiding Officer. Again, let me express my gratitude to my partner in this longstanding effort. Since I have been in the Senate, Senator Leahy has worked tirelessly, together with me and my office and really the whole Senate, to try to advance the public's right to know by reforming and expanding our freedom of information laws. Thank you.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 15, 2016, at 2:15 p.m., in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

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 March 15, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Late-Term Abortion: Protecting Babies Born Alive and Capable of Feeling Pain.''

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 March 15, 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 Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 15, 2016, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Ukrainian Reforms Two Years after the Maidan Revolution and the Russian Invasion.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 15, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., in room SR- 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Hands Off: The Future of Self-Driving Cars.''

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 March 15, 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 Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 15, 2016, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Security of U.S. Visa Programs.''

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 March 15, 2016, at 2:30 p.m.

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 March 15, 2016, at 10 a.m.

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 March 15, 2016, at 10 a.m.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on another note, I come to the floor to make a few remarks about the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Justice Scalia. It is pretty clear that our colleagues across the aisle do not believe that the American people deserve a voice in the process by which the successor to Justice Scalia is selected. We have made our position pretty clear that there will not be a new Justice confirmed until the American people, in the elections that come up in November, make their preferences known about who will make that appointment. Instead of following the rule book of the minority leader, the senior Senator from New York, and our current Vice President--the ones that they advocated for under a Republican administration--our Democratic friends now argue that a lameduck President should be able to nominate someone to a lifetime appointment to our Nation's highest Court, which will upset the ideological balance on that Court for a generation. As I have mentioned before, the last time a Supreme Court nominee was nominated and confirmed during an election year was 1932, and we have to go back much earlier, to 1888, to find a similar situation in divided government, which we have now. When Vice President Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he made perfectly clear that a Supreme Court nominee should not be considered until after a Presidential election has concluded. As we all know, both Democrats and Republicans are well down the road to making their selection for their nominee for President, and obviously we will have that election in the coming November. But our friends across the aisle continue to contradict themselves and their previous statements, insisting that this decision is somehow unprecedented. Well, we know it is not, because if the shoe were on the other foot, they have made clear what they would do. I thought I might share with my friends across the aisle what so many of my constituents in Texas have told me about our decision to let them have a voice in the selection of the next lifetime appointment to the Court. Killeen, TX, is the home of Fort Hood, one of the largest military installations in the world. Last Friday, the town decorated a memorial to honor those who lost their lives in the terrorist attack of 2009, when MAJ Nidal Hasan went on his violent rampage. But John from Killeen wrote: President Obama is free to make any nomination he wants under the Constitution. The Senate, under the same Constitution, has no obligation to hold hearings on or confirm that nomination. The Judiciary Committee's decision to observe the so-called Biden Rule is absolutely correct. The replacement for Justice Scalia should be nominated by the next president. I agree with the letter writer, and the minority leader agreed with him in 2005 as well. That is basically what Senator Reid said in 2005 during the Bush 43 administration. While the President could nominate anybody he wanted, the Senate was not obligated under the Constitution to vote on that nominee. At the end of the letter, John asked me to ``hold the line'' on this decision. He, like many Americans, is passionate about having a say in the selection of the next Supreme Court nominee. I intend to do everything I can to make sure they do have that voice. Another constituent from Plano--just north of Dallas--was emphatic that the Senate should ``Give We The People a say.'' I couldn't agree with him more. The American people made clear they wanted a check on the Obama administration in November of 2014 when they put Republicans in the majority of the Senate. Now we have an obligation to use that mandate from the people for issues that matter most to our country, and that includes the direction of the Supreme Court. My constituents are right to care deeply about this because there is so much at stake. As I said, the next Supreme Court Justice could well change the balance of the Supreme Court for a generation and fundamentally reshape American society in the process. So the people should have a chance for input and should have a voice. I am proud to stand alongside my Republican colleagues and make sure their voice is heard in the next selection of a lifetime appointment to the Court.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on two topics. The first is the piece of legislation that I introduced last year, along with the senior Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, right after the anniversary of the September 11 attacks. This bill is entitled the ``Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act,'' or JASTA for short. It makes minor adjustments to our laws that would clarify the ability of Americans attacked on U.S. soil to get justice from those who have sponsored that terrorist attack. The Senate Judiciary Committee considered this bill last month and reported it to the floor without any objection, so now it is my hope that we can soon take up this legislation because this is important to the victims of the 9/11 attacks. Actually, that is an understatement. This bill, if signed into law, will hopefully help victims and their families achieve the closure that they so terribly need from this horrific tragedy. But this legislation is more than that. As our Nation confronts new and expanding terror networks that are targeting our citizens, stopping the funding source for terrorists grows even more important. So I hope Senators can work together to get this critical bipartisan bill done soon.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess, as under the previous order.

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 Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would have voted ``nay.''

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 Utah (Mr. Lee), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

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