John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senator is out of order.

Mr. CORNYN. Isn't it true that the Senators from Michigan made this demand for a $600 million earmark before a plan was actually put together by the State of Michigan or the city of Flint--either to analyze the problem or what the solution might look like and how much it might cost--and that the Senator from Alaska, in her capacity as the bill manager, has made an effort to come up with some compromises? In fact, I believe the Senator from Alaska mentioned a compromise that would include upfront funds of $50 million plus a loan, in effect, that would be paid back over time. I ask the Senator, doesn't it make sense--because there is no plan in place and because there is money already available for Flint and Michigan to begin to address this problem--for us to take our time and handle any additional requests for funding from Flint or Michigan through the regular appropriations process? I believe the Senator is the chair of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over these issues, and I am just wondering whether that wouldn't be a more orderly, responsible process than a $600 million earmark before a plan is even in place.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Alaska if she would yield for one last question on topic.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask through the Chair if the chairman of the Energy Committee will yield for a question.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Since there is no plan announced yet, or in place, it strikes me as putting the cart before the horse to say that the Senate ought to vote on a $600 million emergency appropriations deal to pay for a plan that has not yet been created or disclosed to the American people. I ask the Senator through the Chair, isn't it a fact that the State itself has already appropriated $40 million to deal with this issue on an emergency basis and the Obama administration has made available another $80 million through the EPA that is available to the State of Michigan to help Flint deal with this problem, so a total of roughly $120 million has already been made available?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for another question.

Mr. CORNYN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday the Speaker of the House and the majority leader met at the White House with President Obama. This meeting was the first time that these three leaders sat down together to discuss the Nation's business since the beginning of the new year and to look for some opportunities to advance bipartisan priorities during President Obama's final year in office. This Senator knows that some might view such a meeting with skepticism and say: What incentive do people have to actually work together when they come from such polar opposite points of view politically and ideologically? But this Senator believes there is an opportunity to build on some of our success that we had in the Senate last year. While many eyes are focused on Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, I want to assure my constituents and anybody else who happens to be listening, that we actually have been trying to get the people's work done here in the U.S. Congress. Some people might not want to hear that, some might not believe it when they hear it, but I would hope that fair-minded people might look at the evidence and say: Yes, there is actually some important work being done. In the process, in 2015, we actually--I know this sounds improbable-- reduced the role of the Federal Government in education and sent more of that responsibility back where it belongs to parents, teachers, and local school districts in the States. We reformed Medicare, which provides important health services to our seniors. We provided for the long-term stability of our Nation's infrastructure. We passed the first multi-year Transportation bill, I think, in 10 years, after having made about 33 different temporary patches, which is a terribly inefficient way to do business. Where I come from in Texas, since we are a fast growing State--and I expect most States feel the same way--providing for transportation infrastructure is important. It is important to our air quality, to commerce, to our economy, and to public safety. We also did something that this Senator is proud of: the first Federal effort to provide meaningful support to victims of human trafficking, a bill that passed 99 to 0 in the U.S. Senate. One doesn't get more bipartisan and consensus-building than that. The way these measures happened, as well as the other work we have done, is by Republicans and Democrats working together. We are stuck with each other whether we like it or not. Republicans can't get things done by themselves. Democrats can't get things done by themselves. The laws can't be passed under our constitutional framework unless both Houses of Congress pass legislation and it is actually signed by the President. We have to work together if we are going to make progress. A lot of the credit for last year's production in the Senate should be laid at the feet of the majority leader, Senator McConnell, who said that after years of dysfunction where we were stuck in gridlock and nothing seemed to happen--he said: We are going to return to the regular functioning of the Senate. We are going to have committees consider legislation. We are going to have hearings to figure out how to pass good legislation, which is going to be voted on in the committee before it comes to the Senate so that we can see what pieces of legislation have bipartisan support and thus might be able to be passed by the Senate. In the Senate we call this regular order, but all it means is that everybody gets to participate in the process. It is important to all of us that we be able to offer suggestions, that we be able to debate and offer amendments both in committee and on the floor. It might seem like pretty basic stuff, and people may think that happens as a matter of course. But, unfortunately, it didn't. In 2014 the Senate had 15 rollcall votes. As the Presiding Officer knows, the Senate was stuck in a ditch and couldn't seem to get out. To give a number to demonstrate how dramatically things have changed in 1 year with the new majority leader, last year we had 200 rollcall votes on amendments. There were 15 in 2014 and 200 in 2015. So we could talk about the substance, but I think those numbers tell part of the story. So I am glad there is open communication between our Congressional leaders and the President. I hope we can find some ways to get some things done, because, again, no matter whether you are a conservative or a liberal, whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, we actually are not going to be able to get things done unless we find a way to build consensus. That is the way legislation is passed. We have more work to do this year. So we need to keep our focus not on what is happening in Presidential primaries but on our job here in Congress and continue to try to work in a bipartisan way and deliver for our bosses, namely, the American people. The bipartisan energy bill we are working on now is a good start to 2016. I congratulate Senator Murkowski, the chair of the energy committee, and Senator Cantwell, the ranking member, for getting the bill this far. I think part of what demonstrates to me the wisdom of Senator Murkowski in handling this particular bill is that some of the more controversial issues, such as lifting the ban on crude oil exports, were handled separately and dealt with at the end of last year rather than in this bill. This bill does represent one with broad bipartisan support. Coming from an energy State, as the Presiding Officer does, we understand the importance of energy to our economy. We produce more of it, we use it more efficiently, and, hopefully, it benefits consumers in the process. This bill will update our energy policies so that they reflect the enormous transformation we have observed in our energy sector. I have said it before, and I will say it again: I chuckle to myself when I heard people in the past talking about ``peak oil.'' That was sort of the talk in the oil patch. People said: Well, we have discovered all of the oil there is, and there is no more. So we are now going to be in a period of perpetual decline. We might as well get ready for that. But thanks to the innovation in the energy sector with things like fracking--which has been around for 70 years but which some people have just discovered, it seems--along with horizontal drilling, what we have seen is this shale oil and gas revolution, which has been a boon to our country and particularly in places such as Texas, North Dakota, and the like. Now, because of the glut, literally, of oil being produced, natural gas prices are much lower, which actually benefits consumers. If you have looked at the price of a gallon of gas lately, you have seen that gasoline is pretty cheap relative to historic levels. Another important issue beyond energy that I think we need to deal with this year is to get back to a regular appropriations process. We saw at the end of last year--because our friends across the aisle blocked voting on appropriations bills, including funding our military, which I just found to be incredible and really disgraceful, frankly-- that we found ourselves in a position where in order to fund the functions of government, we had to do an Omnibus appropriations bill. I have said before that you might call it an ``ominous'' appropriations bill. It is an ugly process. It is a terrible way to do business because what it does is it empowers a handful of leaders to negotiate something that Members of the Senate ought to be involved in through the regular process, through voting bills through the Appropriations subcommittees, through the Appropriations Committee, through the floor, where we have transparency in the process and where any Senator who has a good idea can come to the floor and offer an amendment. That is the way it ought to be done. We need to restore that sort of regular order this year so that each of the 12 separate funding bills can be considered and voted on by the Appropriations Committee and then here on the Senate floor and then matched up with the House bill before it is sent to the President. Again, this is legislation 101, pretty basic stuff. But unfortunately, the Senate and the Congress have not been operating as they should. That is something that we would like to change. So last year, all 12 appropriations bills were sent out of their respective committees--the first time since 2009 that has happened. But, again, because of the blocking of the legislation, we ended up in a bad situation at the end of the year, where the only thing we could do was pass an Omnibus appropriations bill. So now we look to the President's budget, which will be sent over here in short order. We will take up that matter up through the Budget Committee, and we will look at the appropriations process ahead of us. I would like to suggest to our Democratic friends that they have a choice to make. They can try to force this Chamber back into the same dysfunction and the same sort of partisan bickering that has characterized it for years when they were in charge or they can decide to work with us--as we would like to do--to move forward principled legislation, including appropriations bills, in a transparent, open process that allows every Senator--Republicans and Democrats alike--a chance to participate and allows our constituents to watch, as they go across the floor, and to ask the appropriate questions, to raise concerns if they have those concerns. That is the way our democracy is supposed to work. Passing massive stopgap funding bills is not doing the best for the people we represent. It can be avoided, but it is going to take a little bit of cooperation. But I have to think that whether you are in the majority or the minority, most Senators like to work in a Senate that actually functions according to regular order, because, as the Presiding Officer knows, even being in the majority does not mean we have a chance to vote on amendments to legislation. Indeed, for a period of time, his predecessor did not even have a chance to vote on an amendment--a rollcall vote on an amendment-- nevertheless being in the majority party at the time. That is not the way this body is supposed to function. That is not doing our best to serve the interests of the people we represent. So we have a choice to make. I hope we choose the higher ground and perhaps listen to the better angels of our nature rather than the other one on our shoulder to whom we should not pay attention. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) would have voted ``yea.''

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

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) would have voted ``yea.''

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as the Presiding Officer knows, we are busy working to complete action on the Energy Policy Modernization Act. I want to start by saying some good words about the leadership of Senator Murkowski, the chairman of the energy committee, and her ranking member, Senator Cantwell, who have gotten us to this point. Unless we drop the ball in the next couple of days, we ought to be able to wrap up our debate and deliberation on this very important bill that will help our country move forward with energy policies that reflect the times we are living in. I also think we ought to reflect on what those times are because it was just a few short years ago when all of the pundits and experts were predicting peak oil. In other words, all the oil that could be discovered, they said, had been discovered and we would then be in a period of decline from that point forward. In the United States we also found ourselves in the main dependent upon imported oil from the Middle East. As you know, both of those have turned around. In other words, because of the innovation and good old all-American know-how, we are now exporting more energy. To Senator Murkowski's credit, she led the effort to lift the ban on exporting crude oil, so now American-produced energy can be made available on world markets. Just as significantly, we can make sure our friends and allies around the world aren't captive to people like Vladimir Putin, who uses energy as a weapon and threatens to cut off the energy supply, particularly of those countries in its orbit in the Baltics unless they are willing to go along with his heavy-handed tactics. This is a very good story. This legislation will update our energy policies with that reality in mind and enable our country to continue to grow its role as a leading global energy power. I pause here to say that this is not just from people who come from an energy State as I do, such as from Texas or Alaska or North Dakota. The energy story is the story of world history in so many ways. One of my favorite books is written by Daniel Yergin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author. One of the books he has written is called ``The Prize,'' which tracks the history of the globe and in an incredible sort of way, but he makes the point that so much of our history has been determined by the need for and attempt to gain access to reliable energy supplies and how important that is not only to our military to be able to fight and win our Nation's wars but to our economy, to the businesses that need access to reasonably priced energy and to consumers, obviously. We are seeing the benefit now, those of us who filled our gas tank recently, of inexpensive gasoline prices because the price of oil has come down because of increased world supply. There comes a point where it is challenging to the industry, but they have been through ups and downs in the past, and I am sure they will make the appropriate adjustments. In this legislation, in addition to addressing and modernizing our energy policies, we are doing things such as modernizing the electric grid. That is what keeps the lights on at night and keeps our thermostats working when it is cold and we have snowstorms like we had in Washington recently. This bill will make our electricity supply more reliable and more economical in the long run. Just like we did with crude oil, this bill will help expedite the approval process for liquefied natural gas exports. It is amazing to me to think that a few short years ago we were building import terminals that would actually receive natural gas being exported from other countries to being brought to the United States to help us with our energy needs. Now those have been retrofitted and reversed so these export terminals are now exporting American energy to markets around the world. I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about some amendments that I have offered to the underlying bill. Again, I must compliment the bill managers for working with various Senators to try to work in, either through a voice vote or by some acceptance of amendments, provisions which are designed to improve this legislation. My amendments that I want to mention now are designed to address Texas's needs and the American people's needs from preventing overreach by the administration, particularly when it comes to your energy production and supply. One amendment I have offered specifically targets an upcoming rule offered by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, known as BSEE. BSEE is an organization that most people are completely unaware of, but it is set to hand down a rule referred to as the so-called well control rule that deals with highly technical and complex safety producers for offshore wells. Certainly, since the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, we have become all too aware of the dangers of uncontrolled blowout of offshore drilling, but there has been a lot of very important study, work, and education that has been acquired since that time. The industry has done a lot to make itself safer. You can imagine, if you are a publicly traded company or if you are not a publicly traded company, you sure don't want to be in the middle of another crisis like we saw with the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico for all sorts of reasons: People lost their lives, cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and of course the environmental impact along the gulf coast, including States like Texas. In typical bureaucratic fashion, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, BSEE, has refused to engage in discussions that might help clear up some confusion among stakeholders. They have been unwilling to take the time to fully vet the negative impact on their proposed rules and to talk to the people who know the most about it, and that would be the people who would be most affected by the rule. My amendment would require BSEE to resubmit the rule but first by taking additional comments from stakeholders, and it would require the rulemaking organization to have additional workshops with industry experts so everybody can understand what they are trying to accomplish and to do it more efficiently and better. So often the very people who have the most expertise are in the industry the government tries to regulate. I know there is a natural reluctance to try to consult with and learn from the regulated industry, but the fact is, often--and it is true in this case--it is that industry that understands the process and both the risks and what protective measures need to be taken in order to accomplish the objective. So rather than just issuing a rule that is complex and highly technical without consulting the stakeholders who are sitting down and having a reasonable conversation trying to figure out what you are trying to accomplish, have you thought of this, have you thought of doing it differently or a better way, that doesn't happen. Unfortunately, that is where we are with BSEE. In addition, I have submitted an amendment that protects property owners along a 116-mile stretch of the Red River, which borders the States of Texas and Oklahoma. This has to do with another bureaucracy called the Bureau of Land Management. A few years ago, the Bureau of Land Management claimed to actually own tens of thousands of acres along the Red River. As you can imagine, that came as quite a shock to the people who thought they owned that property, and now many of them are stuck today fighting the U.S. Government--their government--in court to reclaim the property that is rightfully theirs. My amendment would help protect these landowners from this massive land grab. It would require a legitimate survey of the land in question to be conducted and approved by the authorities. It seems so commonsensical, but unfortunately common sense isn't all that common when you see the bureaucracy at work. With this amendment, these landowners would finally get a reasonably efficient means of resolution to this frustrating abuse of Federal Government power. Another amendment I have submitted would address how States, counties, and other affected parties enter into a conversation about the Endangered Species Act. Too often States and local communities, not to mention private property owners, are left in the dark while interest groups they don't know much about conduct closed-door discussions with Federal authorities about potential listing of endangered species. My amendment will give all of the stakeholders the opportunity to have a seat at the table and to have a conversation--it doesn't seem like a lot to ask--so both the regulators and the regulated can talk about the real impact those regulations will have on their daily lives and better inform the regulatory process. These amendments get to different specific problems, but the common theme uniting them is a desire to try to lessen the interference by the government in our everyday lives. By pushing back against overbearing, costly regulations that don't actually accomplish the goal that even the regulators say they want to accomplish and ensuring that State and local communities and stakeholders play a role in this conversation which should be part of the regulatory process, the American people would be better served by this legislation. As we continue these discussions on this bill, I hope my colleagues will consider these amendments and others like them to help get the government out of the way or to help correct the bureaucracy when it is misguided and misinformed about how to actually accomplish consensus goals. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Founders of our great land believed in transparency of government because they believed that only an informed citizenry was in a position to consent to what the government was doing on their behalf. The very legitimacy of our government is based on that informed consent. It is also important for the voters to be able to hold elected leaders politically accountable. Of course, they can't hold their elected leaders accountable for something they don't know about or something hidden from their view. It is no understatement to say that the American people's confidence in the Federal Government is at if not an alltime low, certainly a new low in recent memory. Unfortunately, they see the President acting unilaterally, where he should be working on a collaborative and cooperative basis with Congress to pass legislation rather than to try to do things by Executive action. Then we see where elected officials and members of the administration have made blatant misrepresentations of the facts only to be proven wrong and then are not even embarrassed by it. So it is important to have transparency in government, to have an open government. The American people need to know what their government is purporting to do on their behalf so they can approve or disapprove as they see fit. That is the foundation of our democracy and our Republic. Back in October I stood on the floor of the Senate and outlined concerns I had about the evolving scandal involving Secretary Clinton's use of her private, unsecured email server during her service as Secretary of State. I said at the time that her behavior not only violated the President's promise to be the most transparent administration in history--I remember him making that statement during his first inaugural address--but it also represented a violation of the public trust. Now we learn of very serious national security concerns which I am going to speak about in just a moment. Because we know that the Department of Justice is headed by the Attorney General--a political appointee of the President of the United States who serves at the pleasure of the President--and because of the conflict of interest by asking Attorney General Lynch to investigate and perhaps even prosecute somebody in the Obama administration, I called upon the Department of Justice, and the Attorney General in particular, to appoint a special counsel to investigate the matter, given those obvious conflicts of interest. Of course, we read in the paper and understand from testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee just recently by Director Comey of the FBI that the FBI is conducting an investigation into this matter, as they should. For myself, I would say the FBI, notwithstanding what I have said about the Federal Government's poor reputation generally--that the FBI is still very widely respected for its integrity, as it must be, but the FBI cannot go further and convene a grand jury to consider potential violations of the criminal law. That can only be done by a court at the request of a prosecutor with the Justice Department. If we are going to be true to the promise of equal justice under the law--those are the words carved above the entryway to the U.S. Supreme Court--if we are going to be true to that promise, we have to be able to demonstrate that the same rules and the same laws apply to everybody in this country, whether a person is the President of the United States or whether a person is one of our Nation's humblest citizens. We are all equal before the law--or at least we should be--and it is a violation of the public trust when people act as if the rules that apply to everybody else don't apply to them. So far the Attorney General has declined to appoint a special counsel, but I think that even in the interim, since I first made that request and it was declined, we see why it is even more important today than it was back in October. The Obama administration has demonstrated time and time again precisely why we need the decisionmaking in this case as far removed from White House politics as it can possibly be. For example, in October the President went on television and publicly opined on the results of the ongoing criminal probe. He said, ``I don't think it posed a national security problem.'' That is the President of the United States. Based on his comments, one might reasonably conclude that the White House was somehow privy and in consultation with the FBI about their ongoing criminal investigation. Subsequently, I had a chance to ask Director Comey whether in fact that was the case, and he said absolutely not. I believe Director Comey. It is not a little matter when the President of the United States is saying ``I don't see a problem here'' when he actually doesn't even know the facts, and it might appear that he is trying to influence the conduct of that investigation. That is a real problem. In fact, the President's comments were out of line--offering his opinion on what the results of an ongoing criminal investigation might or should be. Since that time, we found out that Secretary Clinton had 18 emails between herself and the President on her private email server. I don't know whether the President still feels like this is not a problem, but it is a big problem. I earlier outlined the publicly reported evidence and explained the very real likelihood of criminal violation on the part of Secretary Clinton and her staff. Since then, my concerns--that the information held and sent by Secretary Clinton contained some of the most sensitive classified information of the U.S. Government--have been confirmed. Just 2 weeks ago, several of my colleagues received a letter from the inspector general of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the agency whose core mission it is to integrate all the intelligence operations of the U.S. Government. That letter was sent in response to one from the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the security of Secretary Clinton's private email server. What the inspector general said should give us all pause. He said that there were ``several dozen e-mails containing classified information.'' As we know, there are several different levels of classification for government correspondence, some more sensitive than others, but the inspector general went on to say that these emails were ``determined by the [intelligence community] element to be at the Confidential, Secret and the Top Secret/SAP level.'' That ``SAP'' term may be a new one to a lot of people, but it is an acronym that means special access programs. It is the most sensitive classified information known to the U.S. Government, and it is a classification even above ``top secret.'' Access to special access program information is so highly restricted in part because it exposes information about programs that are incredibly sensitive to national security, such as how intelligence was gathered in the first place, sources, and methods--some of which would be jeopardized, if not individuals killed if it was known that they were providing a source of intelligence for the U.S. Government. In the case of special access programs from an intelligence agency, that means exposing this information would put intelligence collection and, as I said, potentially human sources at great risk. On Friday, more news regarding the type of information that was on Secretary Clinton's server was announced. It was widely reported for the first time that the State Department admitted that it had categorized at least 22 emails found on Secretary Clinton's server as ``top secret''--that is the agency she was responsible for that said 22 emails were top secret. I think it is pretty obvious, even based on the public reports--most of which were generated from information produced as a result of a freedom of information lawsuit in Federal court--I think it is pretty obvious that her email server did contain information that jeopardized our national security. Let me digress for a second to talk about a new development, a new concern that was raised by this information that some of these different classifications of information were contained on her private email server. The fact is, there are three different government email systems. There is the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network--known as the SIPRNet--which is used by the Defense Department and some other government agencies and which is separate and apart from the Internet. It is also separate and apart from the usual government system called the Nonclassified Internet Protocol Router Network, NIPRNet. The SIPRNet is secret and separate, and the NIPRNet can be used to send emails outside the government on a government email server. Then there is a third type of system known as JWICS. This is the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communication System, which is even more sensitive than the information contained on the SIPRNet, which I mentioned earlier. If somehow, as appears to be the case, information got from the SIPRNet or JWICS onto a NIPRNet system or onto a private email server system, it would have to be physically transferred because they are not connected. Part of their security is that they are maintained as independent systems. The concern is that highly classified information from SIPRNet or the super-secure JWICS somehow jumped from those closed systems to the open system and turned up in at least 1,340 Clinton home emails. In an article in today's New York Post, the author points to Secretary Clinton's Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills or Deputy Chiefs Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan because in one of the emails that has been made public, Clinton pressured Sullivan to declassify cabled remarks by a foreign leader. ``Just email it,'' Clinton snapped, to which Sullivan replied: ``Trust me, I share your exasperation. But until ops converts it to the unclassified email system, there is no physical way for me to email it.'' In another recently released email, Clinton instructed Sullivan to convert a classified document into an unclassified email attachment by scanning it into an unsecured computer and sending it to her without any classified markings. ``Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,'' she ordered. One gentleman associated with Judicial Watch, which has been one of the entities that have filed the freedom of information litigation which has produced the huge volume of emails contained on Secretary Clinton's server, said, ``Receiving Top Secret SAP intelligence outside secure channels is a mortal sin.'' So, as one can see, these are not trivial matters; these are very serious matters. It is important to remind folks that this issue was even made worse because it is likely that some of our adversaries had access to and monitored her private email server. We have heard many of our Nation's top national security and intelligence leaders indicate that is likely. Recently, Secretary Gates, whose long service to our country includes being Defense Secretary under President George W. Bush and President Barrack Obama, as well as high-level jobs in the CIA, said, ``I think the odds are pretty high'' that Russians, Chinese, and Iranians had compromised Secretary Clinton's server. Here we are now knowing that information on that server not only included classified information but information classified at the highest level known to the Federal Government. On Friday, given these reports, President Obama's Press Secretary, his chief spokesman, Josh Earnest, was asked about the status of the investigation and if he believes Secretary Clinton would be indicted. It would have been easy enough for him to say ``No comment'' or ``We are not privy to the investigation because it is being conducted by a law enforcement agency and that is the way these things are done,'' but instead he said, ``Some officials have said she is not the target of the investigation'' and that an indictment ``does not seem to be the direction in which it is trending.'' As with the President's reckless remarks on television in October, either the White House has information they should not have about the status of this ongoing criminal investigation by the FBI or they are sending a signal to the FBI and the Department of Justice that they want this to go away. It is hard for me to interpret these comments by the President and by his Press Secretary as anything other than trying to influence the FBI and the Department of Justice on the outcome the administration prefers. That is completely inappropriate, it is outrageous, and it has to stop. Today this Senator is back on the Senate floor where I started months ago to make the very same point but with a greater sense of urgency and with a lot of new information that has come to light. I believe Secretary Clinton has likely violated multiple criminal statutes. For a Secretary of State to conduct official business--including transmitting and receiving information that is classified as SAP level--on a private, unsecured server, when sensitive national defense information would likely pass through it, is not just a lapse of judgment, it is a reckless disregard for the security of the American people, not to mention the lives of our intelligence professionals who are involved in gaining this important intelligence. It is important for us to protect ourselves against our adversaries. In light of the unprecedented nature of the case and of the multiple conflicts for the Department of Justice, I can see no other appropriate course of action but for Attorney General Loretta Lynch to appoint a special counsel to pursue this matter wherever the facts may lead. That need is underscored by the apparent inability of the White House to resist the temptation to try to influence or, at worst, obstruct the current investigation. I hope the Attorney General seriously considers my request to appoint a special counsel given the conflict of interest and the extraordinary circumstances of this case because in the end it is the right thing to do for the American people. If the U.S. Government--including Congress and the administration--is going to regain the trust and confidence of the American people, they need to know that the chips will fall where they may and that our law enforcement officials, such as the FBI and the Department of Justice, will pursue these cases wherever the facts may lead, that there isn't a separate set of rules for high government officials, such as the Secretary of State, and you and me. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if this sounds like a case of deja vu, it is because we have been here before. I am talking specifically about the flow of unaccompanied minor children coming across our southwestern border, primarily through my State--the State of Texas--which shares a 1,200-mile common border with Mexico. As the Presiding Officer knows, these children are coming not from Mexico but from Central America. This is a situation that about a year or so ago the President and his administration called a humanitarian crisis because we had this flow of unaccompanied children and some with their mothers, but mostly without, who came flooding across our border, and we were just simply struggling to keep up with them to deal with their safety, their health needs, and their security needs. At that time we had a discussion about what we should do to protect these children to make sure they weren't victimized by human traffickers and other predators who might prey on their vulnerability when they get to the United States. Indeed, this morning, under the leadership of Chairman Portman from Ohio, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations held a hearing to explore a disturbing and tragic problem related to this flow of unaccompanied children coming across our Nation's southern border. After these children are apprehended by the Border Patrol, they are placed in the hands of the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure they receive proper care. Many of these children are recovering from abuse, exploitation, exhaustion, exposure from this incredible trip they would make from their country in Central America through Mexico into the United States, many on the back of a train system known colloquially as The Beast. Many of us have seen pictures of this train with people on top of it, not necessarily inside of it, and falling off, being injured, people being assaulted. It is a terrible experience. So many of these children come to the United States recovering from abuse and exploitation after traveling more than 1,000 miles. This is a very important point: These are not good people who are bringing them here. They are part of a transnational criminal organization--the cartels in Mexico, the gangs who help distribute drugs, traffic in human beings, help facilitate illegal immigration. This has become a huge international business. If you ask almost anybody who has had any experience in this area, it is not like the old days when coyotes, as we call them in Texas and elsewhere, smuggled people across in onesies and twosies. These are people who smuggle a lot of people for the money they are able to generate. They, frankly, don't care about the individuals, but they do care about the money, and that is why they are in the business of smuggling these children from Central America across Mexico and into the United States. Here is the immediate problem that Senator Portman's Subcommittee on Investigations revealed: Because the U.S. Government--the Department of Health and Human Services--does not adequately vet the sponsors with whom these children are placed once they come into the United States-- we know, for example, they admit these sponsors do not have to be American citizens. They don't even have to be family members. Shockingly, Health and Human Services is releasing many of these children to sponsors who have been convicted of serious crimes, including human trafficking, sexual exploitation, and violent offenses. Instead of using commonsense procedures as we see in place, for example, in international adoptions, including extensive background checks, thorough interviews, and multiple home visits to make sure a child is being placed in a safe and secure situation, the placement process for these migrant children is riddled with loopholes for those who want to exploit it, and unfortunately there are evil people who want to exploit it and take advantage of these innocent children. Some who may not have been following this issue may wonder: Why are we taking these children who are illegally entering the country and actually placing them with nonfamily member sponsors who haven't been vetted? The problem is that under current law, the Border Patrol cannot turn back people who enter the country illegally from noncontiguous countries. We can from Mexico, we can from Canada, but we can't if they come from a Central American country. So that is why they have to process them and get a placement for them as they issue a summons to them and say: You have a court date in front of an immigration judge in 3 months or 6 months or a year that is going to determine whether you have a legal basis upon which to stay in the United States. Lo and behold, this should come as a surprise to no one. The vast majority of these people who illegally enter the country in this way never show up for their immigration hearing in front of a judge to determine whether they have a legal basis to stay. Indeed, because the Obama administration and ICE--Immigration and Customs Enforcement that is responsible for enforcing our immigration laws--because they simply have quit enforcing our laws once people enter the country, unless of course you have been arrested for some serious crime, this is actually a way to thread the needle and to beat the system and to succeed in illegally staying--immigrating and then staying in the United States. Here again today I wish to focus on once these children are here, and I would think every person with a heart would want to say: Well, we have a responsibility to take care of them, at least until we can return them back home. So I am grateful to the junior Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman, for dedicating his time and energy into investigating such an important issue. I commend him for his leadership in doing so in a bipartisan way. I think most of us can agree with the main point that he raised this morning, which is that the administration has a duty to ensure the safety of these children once they are in the country. I would hope all people of good will would agree, whether they have a legal duty or not, they have a moral obligation to make sure these children are safe and not place them, because of negligence or inadvertence or just recklessness, in the hands of people who will exploit them and abuse them. The subcommittee also released an important report in conjunction with this morning's hearing after a months-long investigation. The report confirms that HHS placement policies are--surprise--wholly insufficient and fail to adequately screen sponsors. They know they have a problem. They just don't have the will to do anything about it. This is unacceptable. This is unacceptable that Health and Human Services knows its own placement process does not even come close to foster care or international adoption standards. For the safety and protection of these children, the status quo cannot continue. I hope somebody will ask the President of the United States about this, because when we tried to pass a piece of legislation called the HUMANE Act to deal explicitly with this issue to raise the screening standards for sponsors here in the United States for these unaccompanied children, the administration and the President of the United States opposed it, and this is what they get. This is what they get--certainly not what they deserve. This is something anybody could have predicted and indeed did predict at the time if we did nothing to address it. So what these children need now, as Senator Portman's report suggests, is certainly a more transparent process with robust oversight. That sounds kind of bureaucratic, but what we need is somebody who can make sure that no child is placed with somebody who is going to abuse them, exploit them or make their life a living hell while they are here. We also need to make sure they are given an opportunity to appear in front of an immigration judge because maybe they have some legal basis upon which to claim a right to stay in the United States under current law--but maybe not--and maybe the proper recourse is for these children to be returned to their home country. We have had this experience before, where there is no enforcement of our immigration laws when people know they can penetrate our border and come here and successfully stay, even though they don't comply with the law. Our laws lose all deterrent value; in other words, where there is deterrence, people don't come in the first place because they realize the likelihood is that they will be unsuccessful. That is an important goal of law enforcement. It is not necessarily to deal with every case once it is on our doorstep, but actually we want to deter people from breaking the law in the first place. That is why enforcement is so important. So I wanted to come to the floor and express my appreciation to Senator Portman and his subcommittee for highlighting this issue but even more importantly to make sure that somehow, some way, somebody in the press, in the media is going to keep writing about this and exposing the facts. I hope we can reawaken the conscience of the Congress and the U.S. Government and say that this is simply unacceptable and we can work together to address it. We must do more to protect these children who are vulnerable to exploitation. Back in November I joined the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in a letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services. This was in response to a whistleblower who indicated those Departments were releasing unaccompanied children to criminal sponsors, many with ties to sex trafficking and human smuggling enterprises. Unfortunately, recent news reports have just reinforced how broken the system is. Earlier this week, the Washington Post published an indepth account of several young Guatemalan children who were smuggled to a farm in Ohio to be used as slave labor after authorities released them from human traffickers. So these children from Guatemala went from being trafficked to being basically indentured servants for slave labor in Ohio. Instead of keeping them in protective custody in an HHS shelter or placing them in a suitable safe environment, these children were reportedly forced to live in roach-infested trailers and their lives were threatened if they attempted to escape. This is a gut-wrenching story, but it is only one story. This Senator dares to say that the U.S. Government, Health and Human Services, and the Obama administration can't tell us how many other children have been exposed to such terrible abuse and mistreatment. We are now learning that these stories are not uncommon. Of course, given the process by which Health and Human Services and the administration place these children--not with American citizens, not with even family members without vetting them--what else would be expected? The Associated Press recently reported similar stories from across the country, including accounts of teens forced to work around the clock just to stay in a safe place to live. One young girl was reportedly locked inside her house, basically kept in a prison, and there are reports of some unaccompanied children who had been sexually assaulted by their sponsors. With more than 95,000 unaccompanied children crossing our southern border illegally over the last 2 years, these reports likely only scratch the surface of the horrors these children are enduring. And it is not over. There are more coming every day. Indeed, we have seen that the peaks and valleys of the flow of unaccompanied children across the border are seasonal. As we get out of the winter and into the warmer months, we will continue to see these children flow across at higher levels than they are now. But there were 95,000 in the past 2 years. This surge of children coming across our border has exposed our Nation's vulnerability to human smugglers and these transnational criminal organizations. It has shown that inadequate border security can contribute to a humanitarian crisis that endangers the lives of the children who are turned over by their parents to dangerous predators and smuggled into the United States. Let's be clear on this point. Once these children arrive in the United States, our government has a duty to protect them and ensure they are no longer preyed upon by criminals and traffickers. But then we have a responsibility to make sure that if they can't legally stay in the United States because they have no valid claim to asylum or refugee status--our laws need to be enforced until those laws are changed by Congress. The United States could see a new surge of these children pouring across our southern border in the coming months. In fact, I will predict here today that we will. We know from historical trends that these types of surges are not likely until the spring or summer months. We shouldn't just stand around here or sit on our hands and ignore this growing crisis. There is a legislative response that I would recommend to my colleagues. I was proud to sponsor a piece of legislation last Congress called the Helping Unaccompanied Alien Minors and Alleviating National Emergency Act, or the HUMANE Act in short. This legislation would require all potential sponsors of unaccompanied children to undergo a rigorous biometric criminal history check. Let's check to make sure the government is not placing these kids with known criminals. There are records we could easily discover if we just bothered to check those records and to make sure we don't inadvertently place these children in the hands of sex offenders or people who will merely traffic them to someone else. Given the clear threat these children face and the anecdotes which I have described here and which are described in horrific fashion in Senator Portman's report, it is irresponsible for us not to do something about this while we can. There is more we can do and should do to ensure that these children are treated safely and securely while they are with us. I believe the provisions of my legislation would be a good start. If anybody has a better idea, I am certainly willing to hear and work with them. Before we see another humanitarian crisis of huge proportion of young children coming across our borders, I hope the Senate will take a look at the concerns exposed in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report led by Senator Portman. I look forward to reintroducing the HUMANE Act soon as a way to at least in part begin the process of addressing this new humanitarian crisis in the making. Mr. President, I see no one wishing to speak, so 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. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I know we will be breaking at the regular time for our policy luncheons. When I am finished speaking, I will yield the floor so that the Senator from Arizona can make any comments he wishes before we go into recess. I want to say a few words about this legislation. I know that amidst the polarization and the circus-like atmosphere of our politics these days, people are really surprised to find out we were able to get some important work done here in the U.S. Senate in the year 2015. While this Presidential selection process goes forward in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina for both Democrats and Republicans, I think it is important that we continue to do the people's work here in the Senate. I can't think of any better subject for us to legislate on than this bipartisan Energy bill which was ably led by the chair of the energy committee, the Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, and our colleague, the Senator from Washington. In my State and no doubt in other States, we have seen how important the energy sector can be to jobs. Texas is suffering a little bit, as are places such as North Dakota, Alaska, and other big energy States, because the price of oil is so low. Actually, it is good for consumers because gasoline prices are cheaper than they have been in a long time. We have been able to see how smart energy policies can have a positive influence on jobs and stronger economic growth not just in Texas but across the country. So taking advantage of our natural resources and diversifying our energy supply when we can is a win-win situation. This legislation, the Energy Policy Modernization Act, will update our energy policies for the 21st century. I can't tell you how many times I have heard people say: Well, we don't have a national energy policy. Unfortunately, that is true, but this Energy Policy Modernization Act will go a long way toward developing sound energy policy that will help us produce more energy, help us use the energy we produce more efficiently, and it will allow consumers and businesses to save money. This bill modernizes the U.S. electric grid--the infrastructure that provides us with electricity--which, of course, we don't think about too often until we have a brownout or a blackout as a result of some incident. It is very important that our electric grid be reliable and more economical in the long run. This bill also seeks to diversify our energy supply, including promoting research on renewable energy options while updating our policies on mineral extraction as well. I think this legislation promises to allow us to continue to be productive now in this new year, 2016. I wish to add one other word about the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, the chair of this important committee. Thanks to her leadership, Congress was able to pass legislation to finally lift the export ban on crude oil--a ban that had been in place for 40 years. Really, that change was the most contentious part of this energy policy. I think she has wisely separated those two issues and left the Energy Policy Modernization Act as one that does enjoy broad bipartisan support. We also need to continue to expedite our exporting of liquefied natural gas, which this bill does. It will help us to get more of our energy to international markets and will provide domestic suppliers a more reliable timeline for building the infrastructure--which is not cheap--to allow us to export more of our domestic resources. This has really been the story of our energy resources here in America, where we have constantly underestimated the impact of technology and innovation when it comes to energy. Just a few years ago, we used to talk about something called peak oil, as if all the oil had been discovered and there wasn't any more there. Thanks to the innovative use of horizontal drilling, together with fracking, which had been around for 70 years or more, people realized that America holds the promise of being the next energy exporter in the not too distant future. I have heard the senior Senator from Arizona, the chair of the Armed Services Committee, make this point, which I enthusiastically agree with: Our energy resources here in America are a natural security asset. What we see around the world, particularly in Europe, is that people like Vladimir Putin use energy as a weapon. Our willingness and ability to export energy will not only create jobs in America, but it will help grow our economy by making sure our small businesses have access to reasonably priced energy, and it will also help strengthen our friends and allies around the world. I look forward to discussing the bill. I hope we can move on some of the amendments that have been brought up on both sides of the aisle and in so doing continue to strengthen America's hand as an energy powerhouse in the 21st century. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of the senior Senator from Utah.