John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arizona, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, be recognized and that I be recognized following his remarks.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between both sides of the aisle and that following the recognition of a speaker on our side, an opportunity be given to a speaker on the Democratic side and that we alternate back and forth using the time that is allotted for the debate.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I say to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee how much I appreciate his good work, together with the ranking member Senator Cardin, whom he alluded to earlier, but the Senator from Tennessee just said something which I think every American should find troubling, and that is perhaps the single-most important national security issue facing the country since the authorization for use of force in Iraq in 2002; that there might be a partisan filibuster of our ability even to have that up-or-down vote on the resolution of disapproval. I ask the Senator from Tennessee, is he aware of reports that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini has said the Iranian Parliament will have the final word on this deal in Iran? I wonder how the Senator would characterize a partisan filibuster in the U.S. Senate, preventing such an up-or-down vote in the Senate, while the Iranian Parliament would have the ability for that up-or-down vote in that institution.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as have all of our colleagues, I have been traveling around my State over the last few weeks listening to my constituents and trying to understand what their concerns are. I have to tell my colleagues that Washington is not in high repute. People sense the country is heading in the wrong direction. They have entrusted us with the way to navigate that, and they feel as though we have not succeeded in getting our country back on the right track. I know that when it comes to security issues--and of all the issues the Federal Government deals with, national security is the only one we can't delegate to someone else. It is our No. 1 responsibility as a Federal Government. State government can't do it. Local government can't do it. We can't do it for ourselves, so we depend on the Federal Government to make sure our Nation is safe and secure, which is a precondition for all of the other liberties and privileges we enjoy. As part of the roundtables and visits I had, I took part in one in Houston, TX, where we addressed a wide variety of issues, but the No. 1 issue that came up was the Iranian nuclear deal. There is no issue more compelling or concerning to this particular group of folks or my constituents back home than the President's deal with Iran because people recognize that Iran is a state sponsor of international terrorism, and what this does is it paves the way to them getting bigger and more lethal weapons. They are also very concerned, as they should be, that this deal requires us to trust an adversary who has done nothing to earn it. I know the President has said there is no trust involved, but in the absence of trust, one would at least think there would be adequate verification mechanisms. Of course, I know Secretary Moniz has disavowed his earlier comments about anytime, anywhere inspections, and we then learned that there is this convoluted process of 24 days' notice and some arbitration before the IAEA will gain access to some sites and then, as the Associated Press reported, the sidebar deals, which, if these reports in the public domain are accurate, would basically require Iran to inspect itself. The reason people are so anxious and concerned about this is there is no doubt about that. Their concerns are well taken, but I think of all the things that concern my constituents and the people I talked to during August about this deal, it is Iran's long history of supporting terrorism, including attacks on the United States and our allies. It is no exaggeration to say the Iranian regime has American blood on its hands, and it has had for many years. Former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice put it well when she said: Iran has been the country that has, in many ways, been kind of a central banker for terrorism. It is Iran that has been conducting these proxy wars against Israel, the United States, and our allies since the regime came into power as a result of the revolution in 1979. Even President Obama and his National Security Advisor Susan Rice admitted earlier this summer that the Iranian Government could use the $100 billion in cash they are going to get as a result of sanctions relief to help fund terrorist attacks, to help fund these terrorist groups. Here is what the President said. I guess he has resigned himself to it. He said: ``The truth is that Iran has always found a way to fund these efforts.'' Well, that does not make me feel any more at ease, nor should it make any of our allies feel any more at ease about Iran and its intentions and what it will do with these funds that will be relieved from sanctions. That does not even address the million barrels of oil a day which now Iran will be able to ply to markets all around the world and the revenue they will be able to generate from that. The President may believe that there is nothing we can do about Iran funneling money to terrorist groups that seek to attack us and our allies, but we cannot afford to just shrug our shoulders with indifference. That seems to be what the President's reaction is: Well, Iran has always done it and they will do it with this money. But he acts as if there is nothing he nor we can or should do about it. Iran's history of bankrolling terrorist activity deserves our attention and should be the focus of this deal, and it should be a major consideration as we proceed to assess the merits of this nuclear arrangement and vote on a resolution of disapproval. I wish to pause a minute just to tell the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, not just because he is sitting next to me but because it is true, that I admire and appreciate his leadership through this very convoluted maze we have had to proceed down until we have gotten to this point. But how ironic would it be that after the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, working with the ranking member and getting a vote of Congress and a signature of the President allowing a resolution of disapproval--how ironic would it be if a partisan filibuster blocks an up-or-down vote on that resolution of disapproval. It is just shocking to me, but that is what the minority leader, Senator Reid, and indeed the President of the United States himself apparently are talking about--blocking a vote on the resolution of disapproval that they cooperated in crafting and that bears the President's signature, that process by which that is to play out. But, again, that is another reason people get so disgusted with what they see in Washington--because they feel there is no accountability. People get away with whatever they can. There is no right and wrong anymore. There are no rules that apply to everyone evenly and evenhandedly. There is no--in the words above the Supreme Court of the United States--there is no ``equal justice under the law.'' It does not seem to apply. Well, just digressing a moment and talking again about this threatened partisan filibuster of the resolution of disapproval--and again I hope and pray our colleagues across the aisle, the 41 who have said they will vote against the resolution of disapproval, I hope they will reconsider if they are even thinking about a partisan filibuster of the resolution itself and not even getting to the resolution of disapproval. They have every right to vote according to their conscience and as they believe they should vote on the resolution of disapproval, but the idea of blocking a vote by a filibuster--it just strikes me as reckless and irresponsible, especially in light of this: I mentioned this to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee a few moments ago, but I will come back to it because I find it so shocking. A few days ago in the Wall Street Journal, there was a discussion or actually a report from the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, who declared Thursday--it said in this story of September 3--that the Iranian Parliament would have the final word on the deal. It says the Parliament speaker delivered a similar message to reporters in New York later in the day, saying he supports the deal which would lift crippling economic sanctions on Iran in return for curbs on the country's nuclear activities. The speaker of the Iranian Parliament said the agreement needs to be discussed and it needs to be approved by the Iranian Parliament. There will be heated discussions and debates. I would hate the fact, if it was to occur--and I hope it does not-- that the Iranian Parliament would have a more open, accountable, and democratic process than the Senate. I hope we do not head down the road of a partisan filibuster, no matter how this resolution turns out. It would be a mistake, it would be a self-inflicted wound to the Senate and to the respect which we would like to garner from the American people. They would see this as business as usual, and I think it would add to their disgust. I hope Members, as they return to Washington today and as we begin to debate this deal, I hope they will recall--and let me, just in a brief few minutes, refresh some of their collective live memories about Iran's long history of terrorism against the United States and our allies. I actually had a chance last week when I was in Dallas, TX, to discuss this matter with a gentleman named Rick Kupke in Dallas, TX. He actually lives in Arlington, TX, right between Fort Worth and Dallas. But Rick was a former U.S. Foreign Service officer. He has learned firsthand how the Iranian regime targets and attacks Americans because he was the last American captured in 1979 at the U.S. Embassy in Iran during the Iranian hostage crisis. He was one of dozens of Americans held in captivity for 444 days under the constant threat of death. But many will also remember two other terrorist bombings that occurred in 1983 that targeted American citizens. One blew up the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and the other blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at Beirut International Airport. Combined, these bombings killed more than 250 American citizens, including 8 Texans, 7 of them marines and another a soldier. It is well known and documented that these attacks were perpetrated by the terrorist group Hezbollah under the direction of the Iranian regime. That is how the Iranian regime does its dirty work. It does it through proxies, not directly but through proxies like Hezbollah. Iran, while it has denied any involvement in these attacks, does not shy away from celebrating these bombings that have killed hundreds of Americans. In 2004, a little more than 20 years after the bombings, the Iranian Government erected a monument--a monument in its capital to commemorate the ``martyrs'' who carried out those attacks. Later in 1985, Hezbollah, together with another terrorist group, hijacked a Trans World Airlines flight, holding hostages and beating its passengers for 2 weeks. More than half of those passengers were American citizens, including a group of six U.S. Navy sailors, one of whom was murdered. In 1996, a bombing on a housing complex in Saudi Arabia was linked to Iranian officials that resulted in the death of 19 U.S. servicemembers, wounding more than 500. More recently, the Defense Department has acknowledged that during Operation Iraqi Freedom, at least 500 Americans died at the hands of Shiite militias who were equipped by Iran with different types of lethal weapons. It became well known that the explosively formed penetrators, which melted the armor used to shield Americans and our allies in Iraq, were produced by the Iranian Government, and the Quds Force trained people to use those against Americans and our allies. Then, right here in our Nation's Capital just 4 years ago, Iranian officials were implicated in a plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States. That plot reportedly included plans to bomb the Israeli Embassy in Washington as well. That is a staggering list of aggressions against the United States and our allies, both at home and abroad since the Iranian regime came to power in 1979. I don't have the time right now to discuss the Iranian fingerprints on the havoc being wreaked in the Middle East, from Yemen to Syria, to Iraq. In all the major hotspots of the world, Iranian fingerprints are all over these activities. Of course, Iran has long sponsored militant groups on Israel's borders, which have attacked Israel with rockets, hundreds of rockets and terrorism. In southern Lebanon, Iran funds and supplies Hezbollah, which threatens Israel's northern border, against which Israel went to war in 2006. In Gaza, on Israel's southwestern border, Iran has long sponsored Hamas. Particularly as Iranian-Hamas relations have frayed in recent years, Iran has sponsored the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Suffice it to say that over the years, Iran has sown chaos across the Middle East, attacking the United States and our allies, while publicly celebrating the death of Americans in Tehran. So with this regime's long history of aggression against the United States and its allies, I find it troubling that the President characterizes any thoughtful questioning of the merits of this deal as akin to warmongering. That is what the President has said: If you don't like this deal, the alternative is war. To which I would say: Wrong, Mr. President. The alternative to this deal is a better deal. According to the President's twisted logic, those who are skeptical of this same Iran, which I have described has time and time again demonstrated its aggression against the United States and which has articulated its principle opposition to this deal--the President would characterize the critics of this deal as the real belligerents encouraging war. In fact, he went so far as to say that Republican opponents of this deal--he has not said this yet about the opponents of this deal who are members of his political party, but he has about Republicans, that those who share the concerns are ``making common cause'' with Iranian hardliners who chant ``Death to America.'' Well, this debate and this vote are simply too important for it to degenerate into partisanship. I know this is something the Senator from Tennessee feels very strongly about. He has tried to elevate the debate and to work in a bipartisan way to bring us to this vote on a resolution this week. I hope we don't follow the President down this low road of partisan rhetoric, which actually only serves to distract us from examining the deal and identifying the true character of the regime that we are somehow making common cause with and hoping against hope that they won't continue at some point to break out and pursue those nuclear weapons. This is not like the Soviet Union. This is not Ronald Reagan negotiating with the Soviet Union. This is a theocratic regime that is led by an Islamic extremist who has American and other allied blood on his hands and makes no bones about it. So this debate needs to help the American people find the answer to this crucial question. I think it boils down to this: Will this deal make America and our allies safer? I think that ultimately is the question. As we prepare to vote on this resolution of disapproval, I hope that we will have a civil, enthusiastic, and spirited debate, as the speaker of the Iranian Parliament said they will have in their body, and we will be able to openly and honestly discuss different points of view. That is the Senate is supposed to be--a place where that can happen and where it should happen. The American people deserve that kind of debate, not a partisan filibuster that cuts off the debate prematurely and tries to hide accountability for the ultimate outcome on the resolution of disapproval. I look forward to that spirited debate, and I hope any thought that any of our colleagues might have had about engaging in a partisan filibuster of this important resolution will fade quickly from their minds. 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

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on behalf of the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Alexander, I object.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on behalf of the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Alexander, I object.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on behalf of the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Alexander, I object.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington knows how much I admire and respect her. We have had great opportunity to work together in a very productive way, but what we have just seen from our friends across the aisle is not designed to actually get anything done. It was a show to try to claim political advantage and to try to create a narrative which simply isn't borne out by the facts. The facts are that these costly proposals are unfunded mandates designed to make it hard for Americans to find jobs or become employers and create jobs for millions of people working for a step up the economic ladder. What Americans need, rather than show votes, are more job opportunities, more flexibility at work, and the freedom to negotiate a schedule that works for them. Our friends across the aisle have been in charge and we have seen the results: an economy that grew last year at 2.2 percent--as a matter of fact, in at least one quarter it actually contracted. So we know what the fruit of these policies are because they have had their chances. Their policies will destroy jobs, smother innovative startups in job creators like Uber, and perpetuate the Obama part-time economy, which has left a shocking 6.5 million Americans in part-time work as they search in vain for full-time work--and, I might add, a 30-year low of the labor participation rate--the percentage of people actually in the workforce that are employed, people that would otherwise want to work. We have seen what the results are. The voters last November decided to try something different. They have given us a chance to show what we can do while we are in the majority, and I think the results are pretty good. We passed a budget for the first time since 2009. We passed a 6-year highway bill just recently, and we are still working with the House to try to figure out how to do that on a bicameral, bipartisan basis. We passed unanimously the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act to fight the scourge of human trafficking, which targets teenage girls predominantly for sex. We have passed the Defense authorization bill to make sure our men and women in uniform have the authority and what they need in order to keep us safe here and abroad. We actually have had a very productive year so far in the 114th Congress under Republican leadership. What our Democratic colleagues want to do is take us to the past with slow economic growth and policies that simply don't work. That is why I am happy to stand here today and object to these show requests that aren't actually designed to do anything but are designed for fundraising, press releases, and other publicity stunts that simply are not what is going to help the American people the most. Tribute to Russ Thomasson Mr. President, on another note, I want to talk a little bit about my chief of staff who is leaving. My chief of staff in the whip office is Russ Thomasson, who I hope is somewhere around here. He is at the back of the Chamber. His son Austin is down here as one of our pages. The bottom line is, Russ and I learned together from the time he came as my military legislative assistant in 2003. From that time until now, we learned how to be effective on behalf of the 27 million people I work for in the State of Texas and to work with all of our colleagues to try to produce positive results for the American people. He is leaving now for greener pastures. I mean that not exactly literally, but he is going into the private sector where he will no doubt be compensated for what his skills and experience are worth. Back when I started in the Senate, Russ came on board as my military legislative assistant. He brought with him great experience as an Air Force intel officer. He is an engineer; I am not. It was helpful to bring with him the attention to detail that engineering training brings. He is also a Russian specialist, which we didn't need a lot of in my office in Texas, but he brought great knowledge and experience to the forefront, helping me in my job on the Armed Services Committee, given that great background. We had some big challenges in 2005 as all of our colleagues here at the time remember. That was the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. Texas likes to tout the fact that 1 out of every 10 persons in uniform comes from Texas. Our military is very important to us. I was raised in a military family. Being effective on behalf of our men and women in uniform who happen to call Texas home is particularly important to me, and Russ did a tremendous job there and elsewhere. As a matter of fact, he did such a good job as my MLA, my military legislative assistant, that when the opportunity came, he was promoted to legislative director. There he got to apply his knowledge and expertise far beyond just national security and foreign affairs and helped me navigate all of the various policy issues we confronted during the time he was my legislative director from 2007 to 2012. Some of these are issues that particularly hit home in Texas, things like immigration, Supreme Court nominations, and the ObamaCare debate. Not only did Russ bring valuable policy perspectives to that role as legislative director, but he was also able to help on the communications side because he understands it is not just important for us to do a decent job--or at least to the best of our ability--it is important to be able to communicate what you are doing in a way so the American people, and in particular the people of Texas, can understand. Yet he also understood the politics that go along sometimes with the job we have in the Senate. Perhaps just as importantly, he brought with him his good judgment to help me hire an outstanding legislative staff. I believe firmly that part of my responsibility--and I am sure the Presiding Officer and our other colleagues feel the same way. I believe one of the most important things we can do is hire the best and brightest staffers because if we do that, and we work with them, we can benefit tremendously and our constituents benefit tremendously from their advice. Russ has set a high bar as my legislative director. He is a tireless worker who has given a lot of himself. Then I would like to say just a word about his job as my chief of staff--as the whip. When I became the whip, he came with me to the whip office. We have found ourselves in a few nail-biting situations in tense moments, and Russ's calmness and personality, his calm demeanor and his diligence have simply helped us get the job done for the Senate and for the new majority. Whether it is trafficking, trade, highways, funding the government, a budget--the first budget that we have passed since 2009--his fingerprints are all over those, along with those of other members of my whip staff who have done a great job. As I learned from the majority leader, he wants to know where the votes are before the vote is actually cast. My whip team, both staff and my deputy whip team, of which the Presiding Officer is one, have done a great job providing that essential information and knowledge to the majority leader so we can efficiently and effectively represent our constituents in the Senate. By the way, I would say that Russ's intelligence background has proven to be invaluable--gathering information, talking to people, and understanding the situational awareness that is so necessary in order to be as effective as we can be. The results prove he has made a big contribution to helping us turn the Senate around, going from dysfunction to function and actually producing important results for the American people. So here is how Russ describes the task ahead in the Senate. He likes to talk about the four P's. This is supposedly the key to what makes the Senate work and how to be effective in the Senate. The first P is policy. The second is pressure. The third is politics. The fourth is power. So I think by his four P's, he encapsulates one of the ways to be most effective in the Senate. I guess, in the end, everything comes down to people and our relationships, the level of trust we are able to build working with each other because that is what helps us be effective and helps Russ be an effective chief of staff in the whip office. The truth is, as I have gone from No. 99 in the Senate when I came here, sitting in that back row over there, down to this desk over the last 12 years, I could not have done it without great staff like Russ Thomasson and all of my staff, both in the whip office as well as my staff in my official office. Many of them I know are here sitting in the back. So on behalf of all of Team Cornyn, I want to wish Russ, his wife Cindy, Sasha, and Austin all the very best in the next chapter of their lives. We used to kid that it is sort of like the Eagles song ``Hotel California,'' you can check out, but you can never leave, once you become part of Team Cornyn. That is as true today as it was then. 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.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I came to the floor expecting to hear my friend and colleague talk about the bill that we are trying to get on, which is the cyber security bill, but again, I hear him returning to his favorite topic, which is climate change. I know he thinks that is the most important subject that we could possibly discuss on the floor of the Senate. I will just say--and I certainly don't purport to be the expert he is--that when you look at the President's proposed new rules with regard to electricity generation, it looks to me like it is all pain and no gain. The experts, perhaps that he has referred to, said that CO2 reductions would actually be less than one-half of 1 percent, and, of course, energy prices on low-income individuals, seniors, and people on fixed income would go up--people who have already been suffering through flat wages and slow wage growth for a long time. Of course, in this economy, which grew last year at the rate of 2.2 percent, it would be a further wet blanket on economic growth and job creation. The Senator and I have worked together closely on a number of issues, and I enjoy his company, his intellect, and his energy, but I would say he is all wrong on this one. It sounds to me like so many of our colleagues sound like Chicken Little: The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Well, I don't think the facts justify it. There are more important things we can do today and this week--for example, to pass a cyber security bill. Work in the Senate But first, I want to take a minute to consider what we have done this year under the new leadership. I know some like to focus on things that we haven't done, but I assure my colleague that we are just getting started, and there is a lot of important work that remains to be done. Last November the American people elected a new majority in the Senate, and I believe they elected us to represent their interests, to flesh out legislation, and to get this Senate back to work. We were elected to run the government and get things done; that is, of course, in a way that is consistent with our principles. I even heard some people suggest that working with folks on the other side of the aisle in a bipartisan way is wrong, that we shouldn't do anything with Democrats on the Republican side or that Democrats shouldn't do anything with Republicans. That is a completely warped perspective. I think the better perspective is that expressed by one of our conservative colleagues whom I asked when I got to the Senate: How is it that you work so productively in an important Senate committee with Senator Teddy Kennedy, the liberal lion of the Senate? This question was asked to one of the most conservative Members of the U.S. Senate. How can a conservative Senator and a liberal Senator work together productively to the best interests of their constituents and the American people? And he said: It is easy. It is the 80-20 rule. Let's find the 80 percent we can agree on, and the 20 percent we can't we will leave for another fight on another day. I believe we have been applying for the benefit of the American people the 80-20 rule, trying to find those things we can agree on, and we have been making substantial progress. Since January we have delivered real results, proving that our back- to-work model was not just another empty campaign promise. Early this summer we passed the important trade bill, legislation that will help American goods get to global markets. Then we passed the Defense authorization bill, a bill that provides our men and women in uniform the resources and authority they need to keep us safe in an ever more dangerous world. We passed an important education bill, the Every Child Achieves Act, legislation that would actually do what my constituents in Texas want us to do, which is send more of the authority from Washington back into the hands of our parents, teachers, and local communities and out of the Department of Education here in Washington, DC. Just last week we passed the 3-year highway bill. Actually, it is a 6-year highway bill. We were able to come up with funding for the first 3 years and left open for us work to be done to come up with additional funding working with our colleagues in the House. Transportation infrastructure is something that supports our States and local communities and allows them to prepare for the growing infrastructure needs in the future while keeping commerce rolling, public safety protected, and protecting our environment. Of course, we all know that we are just getting started. We have been here in the new Congress for 7 months. We are now on another important bill requiring every Senator's full and immediate attention. The Cyber Security Information Sharing Act is legislation that is long overdue. If it sounds familiar, it is for a good reason because we actually tried to pass this earlier this summer before it was blocked by our friends on the other side of the aisle. This legislation would provide for greater information sharing by people who have been subjected to hacks and would address the rampant and growing cyber threats facing our country. One of the things that is so dangerous now is when a private company or an individual is hacked, they can't actually share that information through a central portal with other people to protect them if they haven't yet been hacked themselves. Of course, there are all sorts of concerns about liability and the like, but we need to address this to help the Nation deter future cyber attacks and to help the public and private sector act more nimbly and effectively when attacks are detected. As I said, we had a chance to vote on this in June as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. Unfortunately, this was about the time that some on the other side--I think most notably the next Democratic leader--announced something they called the filibuster summer. These are not exactly encouraging words when it comes to trying to work together to get things done. In spite of the real and frightening threats all around us, our Democratic friends filibustered that cyber security bill in June. We know what happened soon thereafter. The need for real cyber security legislation became even more apparent. Many of us recall that in June there was an initial disclosure that hackers had accessed sensitive background information used for security clearance purposes at the Office of Personnel Management. The estimate in June was that about 4 million people were affected--their personal information. Then on July 9, after our Democratic friends filibustered the cyber security bill on the Defense authorization bill, there was a second report. This time that report informed us that more than 21 million people's private, secure information had been accessed. This information, illegally accessed, includes passport information, which would show anywhere and everywhere you have traveled; Social Security numbers, which are portals to all sorts of secure financial information; private information, background details, extensive information from previous places of residence. You can imagine. On a form you fill out in order to get a security clearance, you literally have to give your whole life history. That is the kind of sensitive information that was acquired on 21 million people as announced on July 9. Of course, it also provides the names of contact information, close friends, and family members. While many of these reports indicate that China, one of the worst offenders along with Russia when it comes to malicious cyber attacks-- many reports indicate China was responsible. The Obama administration for some reason has been unwilling to acknowledge that or tell us who attacked and accessed 21 million sensitive pieces of information. Of course, they have done nothing to respond to this growing threat of cyber attacks. The Office of Personnel Management was not the only government agency affected. In early June, it was also reported that the Internal Revenue Service had similar problems and that data from more than 100,000 taxpayers had been stolen--again, the kind of information that if you were to disclose it about private taxpayers, it would be a felony. It would be a criminal offense. This is sensitive information that has now been stolen for 100,000 taxpayers. This breach included access to past tax returns, sensitive information such as Social Security numbers, addresses, birthdays--all stolen and potentially in the hands of criminals. It is exactly the kind of information that identity thieves want in order to pretend they are somebody they are not in order to steal your money. Clearly, we don't have time to waste when it comes to cyber security legislation. I would point out that the Democratic leader himself, someone who is quick to dismiss the earlier vote when we tried to do this in the context of the Defense authorization bill in June, has said that he is committed to getting cyber legislation done. Well, I would ask: If not now, when? This bipartisan legislation that passed the Intelligence Committee in the Senate by a margin of 14 to 1 provides us another opportunity this week. With cyber threats so clearly in evidence all around us, we should act quickly to implement a solution. I would encourage all of our colleagues to try to find that 80-20 solution on this bill. No one is claiming it is perfect. I already talked to the committee chairmen in the House who say they have some different views, but that is customary around here. Once the Senate passes the bill, it can be reconciled with the differences in the House bill in a conference committee. Surely we all agree that this type of legislation and the protection it provides is desperately needed. As the vote in July suggests, this is a bill in and of itself that will be the product of a functioning bipartisan Senate. Let's continue our progress for the American people. I would add, by way of closing, that more than 70 pieces of legislation have passed the Senate since January 1, and 30 of those have been signed into law. More than 160 bills have been reported out of committee. That is what a functioning Senate looks like. As I said before and I will say again, even our colleagues who are in the minority must enjoy getting to do what they were elected to do, which is to come here and cast a vote on behalf of their constituents on important issues that the Senate is addressing. I hope we can get this legislation passed this week. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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 August 3, 2015, at 5 p.m., to conduct a classified briefing entitled ``JCPOA: The Verification and Assessment Report.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as the Presiding Officer knows, we will have a very important vote about an hour and a half from now on a bill that would eliminate taxpayer funding for abortions, consistent with four decades of U.S. law. Contrary to the comments made by our friend from Oregon who just spoke, rather than withhold those funds, it would take that same amount of money and redirect it for women's health services and actually give them better access to health services at the same time. In other words, this legislation will fund women's health care but not abortions on the taxpayers' dime. I particularly want to thank Senator Ernst, Senator Lankford, Senator Fischer, and Senator Paul for their leadership on this important issue. This is the beginning of the fight to regain America's conscience and the fight to restore the law that has been on the books for 40 years when it comes to taxpayer funding of abortions. We all understand that the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade has held that abortion is a right. But we also know that there is a rare area where there is a consensus between pro-choice and pro-life people, such as myself, and that is that we draw the line--and have since 1976--when it comes to taxpayer funding of abortions. Of course, what brought us to this point most immediately was that our collective conscience was shocked by videos depicting Planned Parenthood executives discussing the harvesting and sale of the organs of unborn babies--an abhorrent, disgusting practice that we cannot ignore. Perhaps the only thing more shocking than the actual dismembering of unborn children for sale is the cavalier attitudes by the Planned Parenthood staff who seem to have sacrificed their humanity and show so little regard for the sanctity of human life. What was shown in these videos is an outrage, and it demands our action. Many of our colleagues from across the aisle have cited their own disapproval of what has been presented in these videos. They will be given an opportunity at 5:30 when we vote on the motion to proceed to get on this bill to demonstrate that their actions actually match their words. According to one report, the junior Senator from Indiana said he found the comments by Planned Parenthood personnel in the video disgraceful. Similarly, the junior Senator from Virginia said that he found the videos ``extremely troubling.'' When asked about the videos last week, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also called them ``disturbing.'' And they are. Like our recent successful bipartisan efforts to fight the scourge of human trafficking, we have a rare opportunity to make a difference and address the moral imperative to defend those who cannot defend themselves. It is important--because I have already heard some of our colleagues misrepresent what is in the bill--to remind everybody what this bill actually does. First and foremost, it eliminates Federal funding for one of the country's largest abortion providers--Planned Parenthood. In fiscal year 2014, Planned Parenthood performed 327,653 abortions. At the same time, Planned Parenthood received $528 million from Federal taxpayers. Planned Parenthood reported revenue in fiscal 2014 of $1.1 billion. In other words, almost half of its income came from tax dollars from the Federal Government at the same time they performed 327,653 abortions. You will hear some of our friends who are defending Planned Parenthood say: Oh, well, this is different because the money is kept separate. But we know that money that comes from the Federal Government can keep the lights on and keep the doors open so the abortions can continue to be performed. It is simply a fiction to claim that Federal tax dollars are not supporting conduct proscribed by the Hyde amendment for the last 40 years. We don't stop there, though, when it comes to this legislation. As I mentioned at the outset, we would actually redirect the money to ensure that taxpayer dollars that once went to Planned Parenthood now go to provide for women's health, such as in thousands of community health centers across the country. I am a big fan of community health centers because they really represent one-stop shopping when it comes to primary health care needs. The ironic thing is we can actually provide better access and more access for women by transferring the money from Planned Parenthood to community health centers and other nonabortion providers. For example, in my State, we have as many as eight times more community health centers as there are Planned Parenthood providers. We can provide women with eight times more opportunity to see that their health care needs are taken care of and at the same time respect the law that prohibits taxpayer dollars to be used for abortions and to support abortions. In fact, according to data from 2013--the most recently available nationwide--every State in the country has more community health centers than Planned Parenthood clinics. Since I didn't want to mention all 50 of them here--that would be a little overwhelming and be hard to read at the same time--I just picked out two States, along with the nationwide statistic--13 community health centers to every 1 Planned Parenthood provider that would still be able to provide primary health care services to women under this legislation. But if we look at Indiana, for example, we would have four times more providers under this legislation. In the State of Virginia, we would have 20 times more providers by simply defunding Planned Parenthood, the abortion provider, and using tax dollars and transferring that money to community health centers. We can actually provide greater access for women's health care. Let's be clear, because I suspect, as I have already heard when I came to the floor, that there will be a lot of misrepresentation about what is in the bill. We need to be clear. This legislation defends women's health and ensures women access across the country to essential health services. As I said a few moments ago, in many respects the debate that we are having was already decided in 1976, the year of the Hyde amendment, named after Henry Hyde, which, as my colleagues all know, prevents taxpayer dollars from funding abortions, except in rare circumstances. We talked about that a lot during the course of the anti-human trafficking bill. But this has been the law of the land for 40 years. I strongly encourage all of our colleagues to vote to get on this bill. An organization that so callously reduces our most vulnerable to spare parts for sale has no business receiving any money from the Federal taxpayers. If people want to raise money from other private sources to support this effort, then let them do that. But tax dollars are not available and should not be available to fund Planned Parenthood's abortion practice--again, the largest single abortion provider in America. While many of our colleagues on the other side have agreed that the vile practices that we witnessed in these videos are disturbing, still some have tried to put off having this discussion at all. I think what would be the biggest failure on our part--no matter what the outcome of our vote on the underlying legislation--would be to fail to have this discussion and this debate for the American people to hear so we can get their input. The real travesty would be if we shut off debate because 60 Senators didn't see fit to vote to get on the bill. That vote will be in roughly 1 hour and 15 minutes. There are others who say we simply have more important things to do. I disagree. For example, the senior Senator from New York said consideration of this bill was ``wasting valuable time'' and that we should instead ``[start] urgent budget negotiations.'' Really? Really? I hardly know what to say. To those who share my disgust for the conduct depicted in these videos and who agree they are disgraceful, disturbing, and extremely troubling, how can you now turn around and refuse to vote with us to get on this legislation so we can have that discussion, so we can have that debate, and so we can vote our conscience? If your conscience is shocked by the footage in these videos, I really can't see how anybody could possibly vote no on this legislation at 5:30 when we vote to get on the bill. Somehow, we as a nation have been lulled into a sense of complacency and have become somehow so desensitized to these barbaric practices depicted in these videos that they no longer stimulate us to act. But today we have a chance on behalf of the American people, the people we collectively represent, to act and to act in a way that protects the most vulnerable. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last couple of weeks we have been discussing some pretty basic and important work that we need to do when it comes to our Nation's infrastructure--specifically, the highway bill that we will vote on and pass out of the Senate today. I am very encouraged by the fact that the House of Representatives has now taken up the challenge of coming up with their own highway bill, and we are going to pass a 3-month temporary extension to give them the chance to do that and then to give all of us a chance to get to a conference committee and come up, hopefully, with an even better bill. That is the way the Senate and the House are supposed to work, and that is why I am encouraged. I think the debate we have had over the highway bill is a good one, and I am glad to see, as I say, that we are on the right track. In my State of Texas we know that good infrastructure and a working highway system are important for a number of reasons. First, it is important for public safety. Second, it is important for the environment. Third, it is important for the economy because when goods can flow freely across the roads and the highways and the freight lines in our State, it helps improve our economy and creates a more favorable condition for jobs. When you come from a State such as mine, which is a fast-growing State, that growth requires the improvements, repairs, and modernization of our roadways to accommodate the visitors who come to our State, as well as those who move there--some 1,000 more each day. So that is why I am pleased this legislation will include resources that will make the lives of everyday Texans better. Resources in this bill--which I should stress involves no tax increases--invest in interstates and freight routes and provide for much-needed border infrastructure projects to promote legitimate trade and travel flowing across our international border, while supporting economic development and improved quality of life. Work in the Senate This bill is just another reminder of the Senate's progress we have made in the 114th Congress under new management. This year, the Senate has made a lot of progress on key pieces of legislation. The fact is we are finally back working again in a bipartisan manner that provides real solutions for the American people. I am proud to say that work includes things on a wide spectrum of priorities, including passing a budget for the first time since 2009, legislation that fights the scourge of human trafficking, a trade bill that will open up new markets for American-made products, and of course earlier this year, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which was signed into law and freezes the administration's ability to lift sanctions on Iran until representatives of the American people have had a chance to carefully examine President Obama's deal. As I mentioned a number of times, I have many concerns about this deal, and I will continue to remind the President of his own words when he said that no deal is better than a bad deal. I couldn't agree more, even though he and the rest of the administration are actively suggesting that the only real alternative to this deal is war--a statement which is demonstrably false. I think, unfortunately, that is a scare tactic. I hope people of goodwill will be persuaded by the facts and not scare tactics, and I hope we will have that debate in September after all the Members of the Senate and the House have had a chance to thoroughly immerse themselves in the terms of this deal and are prepared to debate that on the floor of the Senate and on the floor of the House. But our work is not over. Earlier this week, I cosponsored legislation, along with a number of my colleagues, which would provide additional money for women's primary health care services while at the same time defunding Planned Parenthood. I know I speak for many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle when I say I was shocked, saddened, and disgusted at the several recent videos that depicted human life being reduced to spare parts for sale. This is a heartbreaking practice, and we cannot let it stand. We must stand up to protect the most vulnerable. This bill does that by defunding Planned Parenthood, which has made a practice of taking aborted children and then selling the body parts for compensation. The one reason why this is so important is that, beyond the immediate disgust at these videos in the way that somehow this trafficking in human body parts has become a commercialized practice that Planned Parenthood engages in, since 1976 there has actually been a prohibition in U.S. law against the use of tax dollars to pay for abortion, except in some rare circumstances, and that is known as the Hyde amendment, named after Congressman Henry Hyde. This has been part of the law of the land since 1976. What Planned Parenthood has done is taken tax dollars and claimed they have separated those tax dollars from the privately raised money they use that then finances abortion. They say: Well, we use the tax dollars for women's health services, and we don't use any tax dollars to pay for abortions. Well, we all know that is a convenient fiction, because money is fungible. The tax dollars paid by you, me, and all of us in the United States who are taxpayers goes into a single fund that pays for the operation of Planned Parenthood--the largest abortion provider in America. So this legislation is very important because it does take care of the primary care women's health services, but it defunds Planned Parenthood's abortion practice, consistent with the Hyde amendment, which has been the law of the land since 1976. By doing it in this way, I would say that we are actually improving and increasing access for women to health care services through places such as our community health clinics. In my State alone, there are almost eight times more community health centers that could provide these primary care services to women than there are Planned Parenthood outlets. So this actually will increase access to primary care for women, while defunding Planned Parenthood's abortion practice, consistent with the Hyde amendment. I hope this is legislation we can all unite behind. I would implore all of our colleagues, when we vote on this next Monday afternoon, to join us in getting on the bill by voting for cloture and then debating it and passing it. While I am glad Congress has a clear way forward to meet our Nation's infrastructure needs on this bill, we have a lot more we need to do to protect and serve the American people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

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 July 29, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.''

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 July 29, 2015, at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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 July 29, 2015, at 10:30 a.m., in room SR- 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Wireless Broadband and the Future of Spectrum Policy.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2015, at 10 a.m.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we are continuing to make substantial progress on passing a multiyear highway bill. Thanks to the developments of the recent day--I guess it was yesterday--we learned that the House is open to a conference committee to reconcile an authorization bill that they will likely take up soon and then to have a conference committee to reconcile those differences. Previously we had been told that the House would not take up the Senate bill and was insisting on a short-term patch to the December timeframe. I can tell you that I, for one, was reluctant do that because without a clear path forward after December, we would be looking at perhaps not just the 34th patch but the 35th patch and on and on. What this country needs is a long-term transportation bill, and that is what the Senate will likely pass tomorrow--our own 3-year bill--and then work with our colleagues in the House, as we usually do when the two bodies don't necessarily agree on everything, to work those out. I am thankful that the Members of this Chamber recognize how important this legislation is. I have to tell you, coming from Texas--a big, fast-growing State that needs this investment in our infrastructure--this is important for my constituents. The highway legislation we are putting forward is actually a 6-year authorization, and that is something to be celebrated. As I mentioned, this avoids the sorts of temporary patches we have had in the past. Although Chairman Hatch of the Senate Finance Committee came up with enough money--enough pay-fors in the jargon we use around here--to pay for this for 5 years, there was an attempt to work on a bipartisan consensus. Since all of those pay-fors were not acceptable to this consensus, we got enough pay-fors to pay for the first 3 years of this 6-year bill. But that doesn't mean the work will end on trying to find a way to, in a fiscally responsible way, pay for the back end of this 6-year bill. There is a popular bumper sticker found on cars and trucks in Texas. I know people sometimes get a little tired of Texans who are so proud of their State, as I am. But one of those bumper stickers said: ``I wasn't born in Texas but I got here as fast as I could.'' Indeed, people have been voting with their feet, coming from parts of the country where, frankly, the policies--whether it is tax or regulatory policies--or just the lack of jobs have caused people to look elsewhere for jobs, for an opportunity to provide for their families and to pursue the American dream. I have mentioned time and time again on this floor that our economy in Texas grew at a rate of 5.2 percent last year. Compare that to the national growth rate, which was 2.2 percent. So something is going on here, and I would argue that what is going on is that the policies that have been emanating from Washington, DC, have actually been a restraint or a wet blanket on job growth and economic growth. We ought to look to some of the States that have been successful laboratories of democracy for the kinds of policies that actually pay off. I am not just talking about for businesses; I am talking about for workers and families, particularly when it comes to wages and good jobs. My State is a growing, diverse State. I know sometimes people are surprised. They know we have a large Hispanic population. Roughly 38 percent of Texas is Hispanic. But Vietnamese is the third most commonly spoken language in Texas. We have about a quarter of a million Vietnamese Americans. We are a very diverse State. Some estimates project our State to exceed 50 million people by the year 2050, potentially doubling our current population. There is no time to lose when it comes to maintaining and expanding our transportation networks to meet the rising demands from more people and more vehicles on our roads. That is why this multiyear bill is so important. For example, this legislation would help our State focus on improving roadways that impact the daily lives of Texans. That includes many of our interstates, such as Interstate 35. I don't know how many people in this Chamber have ever tried to drive down Interstate Highway 35 through Austin, but it is almost like a parking lot. It runs the length of our State, starting in Laredo, TX, which is the largest inland port in America, where we have a lot of trucks and a lot of commercial traffic coming across. It starts in Laredo, but it goes through multiple population centers, such as San Antonio--my hometown--Austin, and then Dallas and Fort Worth, which are some of the fastest growing cities in America, before going on to Oklahoma. The interstate is more than 400 miles long in Texas alone, and because of our growth, it is incredibly congested. In fact, 18 segments of the interstate rank in the top 100 most congested roadways across the State. That growth isn't projected to let up anytime soon. As a matter of fact, it is going to continue at high levels. Employment levels in Central Texas alone--some of the fastest growing parts of the State--are projected to double or quadruple in the next 30 years. We are not afraid of getting bigger. We are proud of our size, our growth, and the opportunity that provides to the people of Texas. But passing a long-term, well-funded highway bill becomes even more important when you come from a State such as mine with the sorts of transportation challenges we have now and will continue to have in the future. Building a stronger transportation network for a stronger economy means strengthening not only Interstate Highway 35, which I mentioned a minute ago, but also the vast existing networks of other interstates and upgrading routes to higher standards. This is ultimately about public safety. We need to have transportation infrastructure, highways, and interstates that allow people to travel at relatively high speeds in a safe way. That is why this is important as well. Because we understand the relationship between quality infrastructure and economic success, I introduced an amendment to the highway bill that would help our State connect more efficiently. I appreciate the bill managers for letting us take a close look at this and the potential benefit for my State and the transportation network as a whole. This amendment will provide for much needed improvements to high priority corridors in Texas, such as Interstate Highway 69. Congress first designated future segments of I-69 in Texas nearly 25 years ago, after leaders from the gulf coast region and East Texas said the State needed a new route to increase connectivity between land and sea ports and our existing interstate system. Fortunately, this is also a route that improves emergency evacuation capabilities--something I know the Presiding Officer can appreciate coming from Louisiana--and one that delivers an interstate to the Rio Grande Valley, which is the largest population center in the country previously unserved by the Interstate Highway System. Through years of outreach and public engagement--from Brownsville to Texarkana--we have identified upgrades and improvements to existing State corridors that could deliver a future I-69 throughout the State. We have made great progress since 2010. More than $1.3 billion has been expended toward corridor improvements throughout Texas, and since 2011, more than 200 miles of I-69 have been added to the Interstate Highway System, including the first segment in South Texas. This is still a work in progress, and it costs money. Upgrades are needed for more than 1,000 miles of designated roadways to complete it. I am reminded of what the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, has said to me privately, which I know he has also said publicly as well, about the importance of infrastructure and the Federal Government's role. Now, I happen to be one who believes that the Federal Government needs to do a much better job when it comes to prioritizing Federal spending and spending within our means, which the Federal Government has not been doing. But when we talk about priorities and things that only the Federal Government can do that the States and local government cannot do, as Chairman Inhofe likes to say, there are two things that the Federal Government should do, and that is national defense and infrastructure. He said pretty much everything else is a lower priority item. I think that makes a lot of sense. When it comes to spending money, that is something that my constituents in Texas are leery of when it comes to the Federal Government. They realize that spending money on our infrastructure and the highway system just makes common sense. So with a multiyear highway bill such as the one before us, we can complete our interstate, I-69, and that will move us one step closer to reality. As I mentioned a moment ago, these and other modernization efforts also make our roads safer and help with more efficient freight movement, which means our businesses can deliver goods to customers across the State and throughout the country in a more expeditious fashion. I must also point out that this bipartisan bill is fiscally responsible and the pay-fors are not phony pay-fors, which sometimes occurs here in the Congress. It doesn't increase taxes or add to the deficit. So from my perspective, it is a win-win. I encourage all of our colleagues to continue reviewing it and to keep in mind the essential role infrastructure plays in our country and in our economy. Our economy, of course, is what produces jobs, and it allows people to find good work and provide for their families and pursue their dreams. So far 2015 has been marked by real steps forward in this Chamber, including essential legislation, such as the Defense authorization bill and a bill that will combat human trafficking. This highway bill continues in the spirit of accomplishment. Perhaps it is not a grand-slam home run, but I would call them singles and doubles that we have been able to eke out so far this year. This bill will represent another solid accomplishment for the 114th Congress that we can be proud of on a bipartisan basis. I encourage all of our colleagues to continue the momentum and to get this bill passed soon, hopefully no later than tomorrow. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.