John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, separately, earlier this morning I joined my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee to hear testimony from the Attorney General of the United States, Loretta Lynch. As a former attorney general of my State, I have always taken a great interest in our system of justice at the State level and now certainly at the national level, and I have tried to do everything I can to help strengthen the rule of law and help keep the American people safe, and that includes transparent and fair investigations. I spent a little bit of time asking the Attorney General this morning about her Department's investigation into the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and her use of a private email server during her tenure. I have talked many times on the floor about my concerns surrounding her use of an unsecured email server. The former Secretary did refuse to use the government server and decided to basically play by her own rules, setting up a server at her home in New York. But the fact is, this sort of reckless conduct put our country at great risk. Several experts from the intelligence community have outlined how her unsecured server left her emails--some highly classified--vulnerable to hacking in cyber attacks. So this is a very serious matter. Last fall, about 6 months ago, I asked the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to fairly and fully conduct an investigation. That is because Secretary Clinton is not just a random citizen or former government employee; her case is awfully high-profile. As a result, I think there are many questioning whether she is being treated in exactly the same way as any other citizen would be treated under similar circumstances or whether she is getting some sort of preferential treatment. Because the Attorney General is a political appointee of the President of the United States and given Ms. Clinton's high profile, there are real conflicts of interest and real concerns about politics ahead of justice. Those could be addressed and mitigated by providing a special counsel, as the law provides, to provide some measure of independence from the Attorney General so the public can have confidence that this case is being treated just like every other case and not with some sort of political favoritism based on a conflict of interest. This morning, I questioned the Attorney General about recent reports that the Department has granted immunity to the staffer who set up Secretary Clinton's private server. So anybody listening understands, the only reason immunity would be granted in a criminal investigation is if somebody invokes their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. But if given immunity, then that individual must cooperate with law enforcement authorities and cannot refuse to answer questions because they no longer have any likelihood or any chance of being convicted of that crime, having been granted immunity. This does indicate that this investigation has taken on a new level of seriousness, and I suspect the FBI continues to be hard at work trying to get to the bottom of this, as I would expect them to do. I hope this indicates that the Department of Justice is treating this case with the great care and gravity it requires. They are integral to this grant of immunity because the FBI can't do this on their own, and it takes the prosecutors of the Department of Justice to agree to a grant of immunity as part of an investigation. I still believe the American people deserve an independent investigation, and I will continue to press for the appointment of a special counsel to that end. Mental Health Reform Legislation Finally, Mr. President, I want to address another issue I questioned the Attorney General about, and that is about needed reforms to our mental health system. I believe I repeated to her today--I have repeated this story so many times, I sometimes forget when I have said it before. But I recently had a chance to meet with a number of major county sheriffs, and somebody asked me: Would you like to meet the largest mental health provider in America? I said: Well, sure. He said: Well, he is over here. It is the sheriff of Los Angeles County. So the fact is, many people incarcerated in our jails are suffering from mental illness, and they may have committed petty crimes, such as trespassing and the like, but they are not getting their condition treated as long as they are warehoused in jails. Many communities, such as my hometown of San Antonio, TX, have created a model of how to divert people from jail to get their mental health issues treated and at the same time make sure we don't continue this turnstile of people coming in and out of our jails when their underlying mental illness problems are not being treated. I asked her to take a look at a bill I introduced, the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act, which is designed to help communities and families who are struggling to help their loved ones who are mentally ill. Many families don't have access to adequate treatment or lack the resources to comply with doctors' orders. The fact is, back in the nineties, back when a major policy change was made in America and people were essentially turned out of institutions where the mentally ill were treated, there wasn't any followup to make sure there was some sort of safety net or some follow- on treatment to make sure their needs were taken care of. Today, any of us who have walked down the street in a major American city know we have a lot of homeless people living on our streets who are essentially suffering from some form or another of mental illness, and their needs are not being addressed. Some of them, perhaps because they abused alcohol or other drugs in order to try to medicate or take care of their problems on their own, end up committing crimes of one type or another, not necessarily what I would call a serious crime but serious enough to get them arrested and put in jail. I am hopeful that we will take this opportunity, as we are looking at our criminal justice system at large, along with prison reform and legislation that passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee--which I hope will soon come to the floor of the Senate--to deal with issues like this confluence of mental health and criminal justice in a way that is more enlightened, in a way that is cheaper, and in a way that is more humane and more efficient than simply warehousing people who are mentally ill in our criminal justice system. We can do better, and I am hopeful that models like those in Bexar County, TX, where mentally ill persons are able to find programs that actually help them solve their underlying problem--those kinds of models are helpful to the rest of the country and to us as we try to craft means for our communities to better care for those suffering from mental illness. I look forward to moving this legislation soon. The chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Senator Alexander, tells me he has been working with Senator Murray, his ranking member, along with Senator Cassidy and Senator Murphy, on another piece of legislation that they are proposing on mental health. My hope is that the group of us who are interested in this issue can cobble together a consensus piece of legislation which the majority leader could then bring to the floor of the Senate to let us do some additional important bipartisan work to help address this problem. I don't see any Senator wishing to speak, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the senior Senator from Arizona, for his great work over the years, and particularly now in the Committee on Armed Services, which he chairs. He has been tenacious in his attempt to make sure that no dollars are inadvertently or unknowingly wasted, especially when it comes to the Pentagon. I, for one, believe this is the No. 1 priority of our country. I know he shares that view. But it is pretty hard to make the argument that we ought to continue to give more money to the Pentagon if the money is not being used efficiently, either because of their internal administrative problems or for some other reason. I know, because I happened to be at the Pentagon this morning, that many of our military chiefs are concerned that the things that are being put in appropriations bills are not things they actually want or need and that there are other priorities. The best way to get those vetted is through the Senate Committee on Armed Services and working with the Appropriations Committee to make sure the money is being used as efficiently as possible and not wasted--certainly not on things the military doesn't want or doesn't need. So I thank my colleague for his continued leadership. Mr. President, I wanted to talk about a few topics here. No. 1 is the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, the legislation we have been working on now for 2 weeks. Anybody who has been listening understands the importance of this legislation, which will help stem the tide of the massive epidemic of opioid prescription drug abuse and heroin abuse that continues to claim lives across our country. This bill is actually a good example of how the Senate can work in a bipartisan fashion to advance good policies that positively impact the lives of ordinary American citizens. I know most people in this polarized environment are not aware of this bipartisan work we have been able to do over this year and last year, but we have actually done a number of good things. Some, if you told them, they might not even believe it, but to the people who are open to the facts, I think this is another good example. Of course, in this instance, it has been the result of the strong leadership of the junior Senator from New Hampshire, Ms. Ayotte; Senator Portman of Ohio; the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the senior Senator from Iowa, Mr. Chuck Grassley; along with our Democratic counterparts, people like Senator Whitehouse. I am hopeful this legislation will contain an amendment I offered last week to help those who struggle with both substance abuse and mental illness. It is estimated that more than 10 million Americans suffer from both addiction and mental health disorders. These are called co-occurring disorders. It is a fact that many people who don't otherwise get treatment for their mental health problems try to self- medicate, making their lives even more complicated and worse, and that is what this amendment is designed to address. Many mental health and substance abuse services, like specialty courts, have operated on separate tracks, and they only treat one part of the problem. This amendment really isn't all that earth-shaking. All it would do is make the commonsense link between mental health and substance abuse, something that we direct our existing criminal justice programs to apply to these coexisting disorders as well. That way people who struggle with both addiction and mental health problems can have both of those problems addressed using the money we are already appropriating and already spending in grants to local law enforcement and medical providers. It would also expand substance abuse and transitional services to help those suffering from co-occurring disorders to receive the treatment they need to recover. So I look forward to voting on this legislation and getting it passed soon. I would note that we are having a few bumps along the way, in terms of our Democratic friends allowing votes on amendments. There are apparently about 25 different amendments that have been negotiated between the Republicans and Democrats, but I am told our Democratic friends are objecting to any amendments by Senators who happen to be running for election in 2016. Now, the Democratic leader, in a fit of candor the other day, said they were going to object to an amendment authored by the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Johnson, because he is running for election. Well, I would ask them to back off of that sort of political hardball and to let us get our work done. It doesn't help when they object to noncontroversial amendments or they take certain amendments hostage because they do not want somebody to score points by getting something done. I mean that is why we are sent here; it is to get things done for our constituents. Regarding the amendment I mentioned just a moment ago, that apparently is one of those being held hostage. I would like to share a letter from the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the American Correctional Association, and the National Association of Police Organizations that supports the amendment I just talked about. If the Democratic leadership will not listen to me, maybe they will listen to them. I hope they will listen to the voices of the families who suffer from mental illness and to law enforcement officials. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would just point out to my friends from Maryland, and the senior Senator who has made this consent request asking that we move off of the current legislation--the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act--off of that important legislation into executive session to consider these nominations, that it is the prerogative of the majority leader to set the agenda. If every Senator could come to the floor and cherry-pick different nominations from the calendar and ask consent that we move to executive session and then consider those, it would result in some chaos. For those reasons, I object.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as the entire country knows, it was about 1 month ago that we lost Justice Antonin Scalia. Our country is still dealing with the loss of this man, whose contribution to our highest Court and the health of our Constitution cannot be overstated. Justice Scalia understood the actual words in the Constitution were important. He famously said that if the American people realized what the Supreme Court did on occasion, which was to substitute their value judgments instead of interpreting the Constitution and laws--rather to substitute their value judgments for those of the people and their elected representatives--they might well feel their values were superior and preferable to those of an unelected life-tenured member of the United States Supreme Court. That is an important reminder. Justice Scalia was known for expressing himself very colorfully and clearly, and he clearly was no fan of making it up as you go along, which, unfortunately, can happen when the Supreme Court chooses to substitute their values for those of the American people rather than interpret the law and the Constitution. Justice Scalia was also a key figure when it came to making sure the Court policed the check of Executive power on legislative power. In other words, he believed in the separation of powers and checks and balances. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that Justice Scalia helped resuscitate our constitutional principles and inspired the next generation of lawyers and legal scholars and judges to care deeply about our Constitution as originally written. Because of Justice Scalia, our Republic is stronger. Mr. President, I have listened to and read about comments made by our friends across the aisle who are questioning our intention to allow the American people to help choose who the next Justice on the Supreme Court is going to be by selecting the next President who will make that appointment. It is abundantly clear that the Constitution gives the President the authority to make a nomination, but it is just as clear that the Constitution gives the U.S. Senate the authority to determine how or whether to move forward with any nominee proposed by President Obama. There is ample precedent to support the decision made by Senate Republicans to withhold consent on the President's nominee and to allow the American people's voices to be heard. That is not to say it will not be a Democratic President making that appointment or it could be a Republican President. We don't know at this early stage in the Presidential election. But we do know it would be improper to allow a lameduck President to forever change the balance on the Supreme Court for perhaps the next 30 years as he is heading out the door. There is a lot of precedent for what we have decided to do. Not since 1932 has the Senate, in a Presidential election year, confirmed a Supreme Court nominee to a vacancy arising in that same year--1932. One would have to go back even further--to 1888--to find an election-year nominee who was nominated and confirmed under a divided government, as we have today. So what Senate Democrats are actually insisting on, and the President is insisting on, is that we do something we haven't done for 130 years. Of course, the position being taken by Senate Republicans is not a new idea either. As a matter of fact, the Democratic leader in 2005 said this--of course, this was when President George W. Bush was President. Senator Reid said: The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential appointees a vote. Senator Reid was entirely correct. That is what the Constitution says. As I mentioned earlier, the President can nominate anybody he wants, but the Constitution does not say the Senate is obligated to give a vote to that nominee. I would note that I read some of the remarks of the Democratic leader this morning, and I just want to say he was apparently critical of a story written that included my name and the word ``pinata'' included in the story, suggesting this was somehow a threat. I would be surprised if any person who actually aspired to be on the U.S. Supreme Court--a current judge or a legal scholar or lawyer--would allow themselves to be used by this administration in making a nomination to the Supreme Court for a seat that will not be filled during the remainder of President Obama's term, knowing they will not be confirmed. And even if a member of the same political party as the President is elected President next year, there is no guarantee that same person will be renominated. So I likened the nomination process and confirmation process to a pinata, which is only to say the confirmation process around here has gotten pretty tough. But I am not going to be preached to by the Democratic leader, by the Democrats who have been responsible for filibustering judges, creating a new verb in the English language--``Borked''--when they blocked Robert Bork's appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, when the Democratic leader invokes the nuclear option, breaking the Senate rules for the sole purpose of packing the DC Circuit Court of Appeals with like-minded judges so that the President wouldn't have to worry about judges who might question overreaching his authority under the Constitution by issuing Executive orders or otherwise circumventing the role of Congress. This is a playbook that has been written by the Democratic leader and our colleagues across the aisle. Do they expect us to operate under a different set of rules than they themselves advocated for? Here is what Senator Reid's successor in the Democratic caucus said in 2007. This was 18 months before President George W. Bush left office. Senator Schumer, the Senator for New York, said: ``For the rest of this President's term [18 months] we should reverse the presumption of confirmation.'' I don't really know what he is talking about. There never was a presumption of confirmation. But I guess he is assuming the deference some people show when a President does nominate a Supreme Court Justice. We haven't seen much of that deference lately, I might add. But this is what Senator Schumer goes on to say: I will ``recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances.'' Essentially, what Senator Schumer was saying is that 18 months before President George W. Bush left office, if there were a vacancy created, they would presume not to confirm that nominee. Of course, we know that back in 1992 when he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Vice President Biden said: ``The Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.'' That is what Vice President Joe Biden said in 1992. I see the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee here on the floor, and I want to tell him how much I appreciate his steadfastness in supporting the decision we have made collectively to allow the voters in November, who choose the next President, a voice in who is actually nominated to fill this important vacancy. I wasn't in the room when Chairman Grassley and Majority Leader McConnell were there with the Vice President and the President; Senator Leahy, the ranking member; and Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, but I have heard that the question came up: How can you do this? How can you not allow President Obama to fill this vacancy? I heard that it was pointed out to the President, to the Vice President, to the ranking member, and to the Democratic leader that they were the ones who filibustered judicial nominees by a Republican President. They are the ones who created this environment in which what used to be fairly routine confirmation hearings have become so polarized. Again, I believe it would be foolish of us to say, ``Well, these are the policies the Democrats, when they are in the majority, will employ when there is a Republican President'' but somehow to act aghast or surprised when we say, ``Well, if the rules are going to apply to you like this, then they ought to apply when Republicans are in the majority and we have a Democratic President.'' At the end of a lameduck Democratic President's time in the White House, all three of these individuals--the Vice President; the Democratic leader, Senator Reid; the heir apparent to the Democratic leadership, Senator Schumer--all three of them are quick to criticize Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, insisting that different principles ought to apply. But that is hypocritical. It is the height of hypocrisy to say: Well, one set of rules applies to us and a different set of rules applies to you. This is more than just about hypocrisy; this is really about an important principle. It is important to allow the voters, in choosing the next President of the United States, to make that decision and make sure their voice is heard rather than just 100 Members of the Senate. I don't know why that should be objectionable. So it is pretty clear to me--it is absolutely clear to me that Senate Republicans stand firmly behind the idea that the people should have a say in this critical issue when they vote in November because there is a lot at stake here--a lot. Depending on who ultimately fills this vacancy next year, the next Supreme Court Justice could tip the ideological direction of the Court for a generation--Justice Scalia served for 30 years--and thus fundamentally reshape American society in the process. Given President Obama's previous Supreme Court nominees, the question before the American people is whether they want someone with the same or similar ideology to dramatically change the current balance on the Supreme Court, because if President Obama were allowed to nominate someone who is confirmed in the same mold as those he has already nominated and who have been confirmed, it would for a generation change the ideological balance of the U.S. Supreme Court. You have to wonder whether the real goal--much like it was when the nuclear option was invoked and we saw nominees to the District of Columbia Court of appeals, which some people call the second most important court in the Nation--when there was literally a packing of nominees on that court because they wanted to tip the ideological balance of the DC Court of Appeals because most of the important legal decisions made which ultimately go to the U.S. Supreme Court go through that court. I have no doubt in my mind that the President and his allies wanted somebody who is going to rubberstamp the President's actions. This Court with Justice Scalia I think has rebuked the President on numerous occasions when he overreached his authority--for example, on recess appointments. We have seen an injunction granted by a district court in Brownsville, TX, upheld by the Fifth Court of Circuit Appeals, on the President's Executive action on immigration. The Court has often--led by Justice Scalia--stood strong against attempts by the President to grab power for the executive branch away from Congress and, more importantly, from the American people. So at this critical juncture in our Nation's history, the American people should have a voice in deciding who selects the next Justice on the Supreme Court. I and my colleagues are absolutely committed to making sure they have that voice. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I have come to the floor several times to talk about the ongoing investigation into the private email server of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. While serving as the top diplomat for the United States, she plainly believed she could play by her own set of rules. Instead of using a government server with all of the attendant protections from cyber attacks and intelligence gathering by our adversaries, Secretary Clinton paid a staffer thousands of dollars to set up a private, unsecure email server at her home in New York. So it is pretty clear, based on published reports, that Secretary Clinton went out of her way by paying money out of her own pocket to avoid important laws that Congress has passed to guarantee that the American people actually know what their government is doing. I am talking particularly about the Freedom of Information Act. I haven't heard of any other example of someone in the Federal Government--accountable to the people of the United States--setting up a separate private email server just to conduct official business, not to mention the Secretary of State. It is simply unprecedented. Her actions also put our country at risk, as her private email server was reportedly unsecure. We have heard time and again from those in the intelligence community that her use of an unsecure, private email server left her emails--some highly classified--vulnerable to hacking and cyber attack from our Nation's enemies. We may never know the full extent to which her irresponsible actions have affected our military endeavors, our diplomatic efforts, our overall national security or the lives and safety of those who serve in the intelligence community or are in harm's way trying to keep our country safe. We don't know to what extent her recklessness and irresponsibility have jeopardized the lives of people who are engaged in keeping our country safe. We do know that it has jeopardized the security of our country at large. To this day, Secretary Clinton refuses to accept full responsibility for her actions and denies the serious nature of the FBI's ongoing investigation, calling it only a ``security review.'' Well, it is pretty clear that the Justice Department is doing an investigation. Just this last week, it was reported that the Justice Department granted immunity to the staffer who set up Secretary Clinton's server. So this further confirms that Secretary Clinton is misrepresenting to the public when this inquiry is dismissed as some routine ``security review.'' We don't grant immunity from criminal prosecution to someone in order to gain their cooperation to testify in a case where they otherwise would claim the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. That is why immunity is granted--so they no longer can claim a belief that they might be prosecuted for being a witness against themselves. That is why immunity is granted. So this indicates what I have said all along, which is that this is a serious investigation that may determine that classified information has been mishandled--a serious crime. The Justice Department should pursue this case as aggressively as it would any other case involving any other person where there has been concern about the mishandling of classified information because the American people deserve nothing less. Secretary Clinton is not just some random citizen or former government employee; she was a member of this President's Cabinet and Secretary of State. In light of this extraordinary case and the unavoidable myriad of conflicts of interest, I have called repeatedly on the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to fully and fairly conduct the investigation. It is not just important that a thorough and independent investigation be conducted; it is important that the American people have confidence and believe that a fair and independent investigation is being conducted. One simply can't reach that conclusion, given the fact that the Attorney General, who is the political appointee of this President and who serves at his pleasure, is loathe to have this investigation proceed, and I will get to that in a moment. The President has inappropriately made comments while this investigation is ongoing. I asked the Attorney General last fall--she is the only one who can make this decision--to appoint a special counsel to give some semblance of independence from the political operation at the Department of Justice and the White House. Unfortunately, almost 6 months later, no independent counsel has been appointed. I think the necessity for such a person to be appointed is even more critical than ever.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, we will soon end the debate and vote on a bill known as the CARA Act, a piece of legislation that will help restore families and communities across America that have been harmed by addiction and drug abuse. This is a serious piece of legislation that has been done on a bipartisan basis and is a good illustration of how we in the Senate ought to be doing our jobs as representatives of the American people. We identify a problem, and we work across the aisle to come up with a solution. We consider it on the floor of the Senate so that all 100 Members can have an opportunity to discuss it. An essential part of getting this legislation considered and passed on the floor is the hard work that happens in the respective committees, and the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act is no exception. It is not only the result of bipartisan work but also the leadership of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the senior Senator from Iowa. We would not be here today considering this important legislation without Chairman Grassley's leadership. So it has been particularly disappointing for me to hear the Democratic leader and some across the aisle disparage this good man and say that he and other Republicans are not doing their jobs. I think the evidence is to the contrary. It is our job to advance commonsense legislation that will benefit the entire country. That is exactly what this legislation does and exactly what the chairman has been diligently pursuing. I would like to remind our friends across the aisle that the legislation we will soon advance is a bill the chairman diligently guided through the Judiciary Committee. I am thankful for his leadership and look forward to moving this bill along. Madam President, I see no other Senator wishing to speak.

Mr. CORNYN

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 3, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

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 3, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 3, 2016, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Regulatory Reforms To Improve Equity Market Structure.''

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 3, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room 345 of the Cannon House Office Building.

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 3, 2016, at 2 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 3, 2016, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Path Forward in Libya.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 3, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Free Trade Agreement Implementation: Lessons from the Past.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 3, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Impacts of Federal Fisheries Management on Small Businesses.''

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 3, 2016, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Dogs of DHS: How Canine Programs Contribute to Homeland Security.''

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 3, 2016, at 9:45 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about the pending legislation, which is very important. It actually enjoys broad bipartisan support, and I am optimistic we can get it done. Before I talk about that, I wish to comment on some of the things that have been said on the floor with regard to the vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia. First, the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, clearly wants to apply a different set of rules when Republicans are in the majority than he did when Democrats were in the majority. That is very clear. People may get lost in some of the arcane and convoluted nature of the arguments we make on the floor, but the American people understand hypocrisy when they see it. Clearly, in 2005, when President George W. Bush was President, Senator Reid made this statement: The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential appointees a vote. We actually agreed with Senator Reid then. But to have him come to the floor and lambaste the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and others in a very personal way is surely beneath the dignity of this body and of any Senator. Somehow the Democratic leader feels as if the rules that apply to the rest of us simply don't apply to him. He comes to the floor and tries to provoke fights. We actually have some important work to get done, and we will get it done on this Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, the so-called CARA Act. I wish to make another point clear. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed in a united way to the same principle that our Democratic colleagues have argued for decades. During an election year, a Supreme Court nominee should not be confirmed. I previously had spoken about Senator Joe Biden making that point when he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee back in 1992. In 2005, Senator Reid made that point. In 2007, Senator Schumer, the heir apparent to the Democratic leadership, made the same point. But, again, they feel that now the rules should apply differently under a Democratic majority than they do under a Republican majority. We are not a rubberstamp for the President of the United States. The Constitution says as much. We can grant consent or we can withhold consent. I, for one, am for withholding consent to the confirmation of another liberal on the U.S. Supreme Court. We have seen the types of Justices that President Obama has nominated: Justice Kagan, Justice Sotomayor--clearly on the left in terms of the balance of power on the U.S. Supreme Court. To simply give President Obama the ability to appoint somebody who is going to change the balance of the Supreme Court to tilt left for the next 25 or 30 years is simply unacceptable. So it really doesn't make any difference who the President nominates. I am sure they will be very much in the same mold as the two Justices that he has already nominated: Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor. I say that with respect to them as people. They are entitled to their opinions just as we are, but their decisions make fundamental changes in the United States. And it is not just for a term of office; it is literally for a generation. We are not going to stand by and allow President Obama--on his way out the door as a lameduck President--to change the balance of power on the Supreme Court for the next 25 to 30 years. Madam President, now to a more pleasant topic. I actually have been encouraged, despite the disagreement we have with our friends across the aisle on the Supreme Court, to see that there is interest in actually getting some work done. I hope that does not cause us to fail to do our duty when it comes to places we agree on, such as the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. This bill has been the result of a lot of hard work and bipartisan discussions. I thank the leadership and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, as he made this a priority. This wasn't just for Republicans who were proposing we move on this legislation. Senator Klobuchar and Senator Whitehouse on the Democratic side, and Senator Portman, Senator Toomey and Senator Ayotte on the Republican side brought this to everyone's attention, primarily because of the devastating impact of the opioid prescription drug abuse problem and the heroin problem in their parts of the country, but it affects the whole country. I am thankful that the Democratic leadership understands that this legislation should not be taken as a partisan hostage because it is about helping to restore communities and families from the effects of drug addiction and it is about stemming the tide of a massive epidemic of opioid drug use and addiction that continues to claim lives across the country. It is an example of how in the 114th Congress, since the beginning of last year, we have actually been able to work together with our colleagues across the aisle. Before that, under the leadership of the Senator from Nevada, this institution was deadlocked. It wasn't just when Republicans were in the majority. When Democrats were in the majority, even they could not get votes on amendments. It is pretty hard to explain that back home: Yes I am in the majority, but it doesn't make any difference in terms of my ability to get things done for the people I represent. I actually am very pleased that we have been working our way through this legislation and other legislation that could help advance good policies that positively impact the lives of the American people on a daily basis. Madam President, another effort we have worked on in the Judiciary Committee has to do with the intersection of mental illness and the criminal justice system. I recently met with a number of major county sheriffs, and I was introduced to the sheriff of Los Angeles County. He said: I am the largest mental health provider in the country--the sheriff of Los Angeles. The fact is, after we deinstitutionalized people with mental illness, basically there was no safety net for them, no continuing treatment for their needs, so they either end up in jails or living homeless on our streets. I have introduced legislation, and Chairman Grassley allowed us to have a hearing on it. I think it was very instructive. It was also very interesting. I say this to my friend from Maine: It is one of the few times we have actually had a consensus panel of witnesses. I think on some committees in the Senate that is a common practice, but usually in the Judiciary Committee things are so polarized that we rarely have a consensus panel. But we did on the issue of mental illness. Reforming our country's mental health system has become an area of real bipartisan consensus as well, along with criminal justice reform. In order to protect our communities and to get help to the people with mental illness, we actually need to act. What has also become clear is that many people who struggle with mental illness suffer from addiction and substance abuse. In many instances they self-medicate. They have a mental illness, they cannot deal with it, they are not getting the prescriptions they need from their doctors, so they end up drinking or taking drugs. These are so- called co-occurring disorders. It is estimated that more than 10 million Americans suffer from both addiction and mental health disorders--co-occurring disorders. Unfortunately, many mental health services such as specialty courts--drug courts, veterans courts, and the like--have operated on separate tracks and treat only one aspect of the problem. Someone with a history of drug abuse and mental illness may be sent to a drug court where their mental health needs are not taken into account. By definition, a drug court deals with people with drug problems, not necessarily mental health issues. When that happens, the underlying problem isn't addressed at all. I have submitted an amendment to this legislation that will address this common link between mental illness and substance abuse in the criminal justice system. It would direct existing programs to apply to co- occurring disorders as well, so that people suffering from both addiction and mental health problems are not seen and treated for just one of those problems. It seems as if it makes sense. It would also expand substance abuse and transitional services to help people suffering from co-occurring disorders to receive the appropriate treatment they need in order to get back on their feet. This amendment has been cosponsored by the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, the senior Senator from Tennessee, whom I thank for his important contribution to this effort. It also has the support of many stakeholders around the country, including the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the National Association of Police Organizations. I hope, when the time comes, our colleagues will support this amendment as a commonsense measure that will help those suffering from both mental health and addiction problems, and I believe it will make the underlying bill that much stronger. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a very important day in the history of my State of Texas, a day that inspires pride and gratitude in the hearts of all Texans. I rise to commemorate Texas Independence Day. In a moment, I wish to read a letter that was written 180 years ago from behind the walls of an old Spanish mission called the Alamo--a letter written by a 26-year-old lieutenant colonel in the Texas Army, William Barret Travis--and in doing so, I carry on a tradition that was started by the late Senator John Tower, who represented Texas and this body for more than two decades. This tradition was upheld by his successor, Senator Phil Gramm, and then by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison after him. So it is an honor today to carry on this great tradition. On February 24, 1836, with his position under siege and outnumbered nearly 10-to-1 by the forces of the Mexican dictator Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana, Travis penned the following letter: To the people of Texas and all Americans in the world: Fellow citizens and compatriots, I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Ana. I have sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion. Otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism and everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to 3,000 or 4,000 in 4 or 5 days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor and that of his country. Victory or death. Signed: William Barret Travis. Of course, we know in the battle that ensued, all 189 defenders of the Alamo lost their lives, but they did not die in vain. The Battle of the Alamo bought precious time for the Texas revolutionaries allowing General Sam Houston to maneuver his army into position for a decisive victory at the Battle of San Jacinto. With this victory, Texas became a sovereign nation, and so today we celebrate the adoption of the Texas Declaration of Independence on March 2, 1836. For 9 years, the Republic of Texas thrived as a separate nation. In 1845, it was annexed to the United States as the 28th State. Many Texan patriots who fought in the revolution went on to serve in the U.S. Congress, and I am honored to hold the seat of one of them, Sam Houston. More broadly, I am honored to have the opportunity to serve 27 million Texans, thanks to the sacrifices made by these brave men 180 years ago. Return from Space of Commander Scott Kelly and Manifest For Human Space Flight Act Mr. President, on a separate matter, one thing William Barret Travis and the other early settlers of Texas had in common was a thirst for adventure and a hunger for the great next frontier. It is an attitude of optimistic perseverance that has become a trademark of Texans for generations. So I think it is fitting today that we also celebrate a man who has devoted his life to expanding our footprint in space. Last night Scott Kelly returned to Earth after almost a year in space--one of the longest lasting space flights of all time. By tomorrow Scott should be back in Houston, home to the Johnson Space Center. In June I was able to tour the Johnson Space Center and meet some of the men and women who made Scott Kelly's mission possible. They make their work look easy. They literally have a hand in sending someone to space, ensuring their safety, and executing multiple projects all at the same time. Yet for them it is all in a day's work. They are doing an outstanding job, not only for Houston but for Texas and the United States. As you might expect, Texans view the space center with a particular pride. The world has turned to it as a leader in space exploration and research for more than 50 years. As one of NASA's largest research centers, it continues to keep the United States in the forefront of innovation and research related to science, technology, engineering, and medicine as well. Importantly, the Johnson Space Center also leads our commercial space partnerships--a growing sector in my State--and helps design and test the next generation of exploration capabilities and systems. The space center also trains members of our brave astronaut corps, people such as Scott Kelly, to ensure they are prepared for the incredible challenge they face. A real highlight of my most recent visit to the Johnson Space Center was my ability to actually speak to Scott Kelly while he was in space in the International Space Station. As you can tell from his social media presence--and I follow him on Twitter; he publishes pictures of his incredible view from space on his Twitter feed--he is an optimistic guy, and it is easy to see that he loves his job, but I am sure he is looking forward to being back home. Scott's mission aboard the International Space Station was about something much bigger than just he, which I am sure he would say if he were here. It was about an investment in the next generation and a commitment to new discoveries and exploring new frontiers. The research he was a part of, included studies to evaluate the effects of living in space on the human body. Scott is actually a twin. His twin brother was here on Earth while he was in space for a year, and I am sure there will be a lot of extensive studies, given the fact that they are twins, on what changes Scott experienced in his own metabolism, body, and the like. They also grew plants in zero gravity in space and much more, which will lay the groundwork for preparing future Americans to go farther, explore more places, and push the outer limits of human space exploration safely without endangering their health and well-being. The work Scott Kelly accomplished, along with all of the men and women at the Johnson Space Center and with NASA, is so important because it secures America's position as the global leader in space exploration. As important, this research and development impacts more than our space program. It helps applications in the medical field, for our military, and other scientific endeavors. I remember growing up, when we landed the first astronaut on the Moon and what an inspiration it was to me as a young person. I think space exploration has a way of opening the eyes and the imaginations of young people even today about the future--a future perhaps in space exploration or other fields of science, lured as they are to work in the forefront of discovery or help engineer the next great innovation. Developments like this don't occur automatically and they don't occur overnight. We have to task our space program with taking on new challenges to reap the full benefits, technological breakthroughs, and scientific advancements, and that is why we needed a long-term strategy for the U.S.-manned space mission. Today I am introducing legislation called the Manifest for Human Space Flight Act that would require NASA to provide Congress with a clear goal and thoughtful strategy. This would include outlining our exploration goals and selecting destinations for future manned space missions that fully utilize our existing assets, provide opportunities to work with commercial and international partners, and position our overall space program on a more focused and stable trajectory. This legislation would also, for the first time, designate a human presence on Mars as a long-term goal of NASA. Lieutenant Watley was perhaps an American on Mars in a great movie ``The Martian,'' but I believe actually establishing a human presence on Mars would be a worthy goal that would then necessitate the strategy to accomplish that goal. With this bill, I hope we can rightly prioritize space exploration and confirm our commitment to discovering the next great frontier. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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