John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 16, 2015, at 2:45 p.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 16, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Federal Real Property Reform: How Cutting Red Tape and Better Management Could Achieve Billions in Savings.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific, and International Cyber Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 16, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Strategic Implications of Trade Promotion and Capacity- Building in the Asia-Pacific Region.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

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 appreciate the comments of my friend from Arizona, but if I am going to be as loquacious as he suggested, it may take me a little more than 10 minutes, so I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last few days, this Chamber has been discussing the Defense authorization bill, thus fulfilling one of our basic responsibilities as part of the Federal Government; that is, our national security, and in the process making sure our warfighters-- the people who are on the cutting edge of the knife, so to speak, in terms of our national security--have the resources we are morally committed and duty-bound to provide them. So when voting for the Defense authorization bill, we as legislators are fulfilling our responsibilities, just as those who wear the uniform are performing their duties--no more, no less--although I must say ours is a tad safer than they are experiencing, to be sure. With so much at stake for the security of our country, the well-being of our folks in uniform as well as the families of those servicemembers hanging in the balance, as I mentioned yesterday, it is particularly disappointing that the Democratic leader has characterized the discussion of this bill as ``a waste of time.'' I really have to believe he would want to take those words back because it certainly is not a waste of time. Unfortunately, it is becoming more and more evident that the threats of the Democratic leader and the President of the United States to stall Republicans' efforts to get this bill passed quickly is just the first step to a larger political strategy. The reason I know that is not because it just occurred to me--an epiphany--it is because they said so in the pages of the Washington Post just yesterday. The headline says it all: ``Democrats prepare for filibuster summer.'' That is the headline in the Washington Post yesterday. The article goes on to say: ``Democrats have decided to block all spending bills starting with the defense appropriations measure headed to the floor next week.'' So imagine my surprise when yesterday the Democratic leader came to the floor and accused Republicans of threatening to shut down the government, the same day his colleague, the senior Senator from New York, detailed their strategy to block all appropriations bills, in the Washington Post. One thing we have to love about our friends across the aisle: They are not unclear, nor are they timid, about telling us what their plans are. Indeed, it is there for the world to read and for us to read. But let me say it again. Hours after the Democratic leader laid out their plans to filibuster all government spending bills, their leader claimed Republicans were the ones threatening a shutdown. This type of cynical political maneuvering is what the American people so soundly rejected in the last election on November 4. Stifling debate and shutting down the Senate are not what the American people sent us to do, and it is certainly not what my constituents expect me to do on their behalf. Today, our colleagues across the aisle have now blocked an amendment that would provide for greater sharing of information to address the rampant and growing cyber threat this country faces. The sharing of cyber threat information will help us as a country deter future cyber attacks, and it helps both the public and the private sector to act in a more nimble way when attacks are detected. So the fact that seven Democrats joined virtually all Republicans to move forward with this bill, tells me the Democratic position is not monolithic. In other words, when the Democratic leader and the senior Senator from New York say it is our plan to shut down the Senate and not to cooperate to get the people's work done, not every Member of the Democratic minority are comfortable with that cynical strategy--and good for them. The refusal to move forward with this legislation, particularly the cyber security part of this discussion, is just unconscionable. Let me give my colleagues some other headlines. Just last week, there was a massive breach at the Office of Personnel Management. The sensitive personal information of up to 4 million--4 million--current and former Federal employees may have been compromised. There are now reports that the stolen data includes login information and credentials that is actively being traded, bought, and sold online. Now, we will await the details of the current investigation into this, but we know it has great potential to harm not only the privacy interests and the financial interests of the people affected but also our national security. We know there are state actors--notably China and Russia--who are, on a regular basis, engaged in cyber attacks against the United States in an effort to steal our intellectual property as well as in order to do intelligence operations using the Internet and using cyber space. Now, in terms of the personal interests of these employees, it may expose them--many of whom may work with national security matters--to further targeting by hackers, identity thieves, and even foreign intelligence agents. At the end of last month, it was reported that the data of more than 100,000 taxpayers was stolen at the IRS. Just so colleagues understand the reason for my concern, the former Acting Director of the CIA, on June 11, 2015, when asked about former Senator and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's decision to put all of her official emails at the Secretary of State's office on a private email server, Michael Morell said: ``I think that foreign intelligence services, the good ones, have everything on any unclassified network that the government uses.'' So not only do they have it on unclassified networks such as the one Hillary Clinton maintained, but also if they are able to breach the security measures we have in place on government networks, they are happy to steal that for whatever their purpose may be, whether it is intelligence- gathering or whether it is economic harm that they can impose on American citizens by hacking their identity or stealing their bank accounts or what have you. So we also have to be worried about the 100,000 people whose accounts were hacked at the IRS. The suggestion that was made by the IRS Commissioner at the Finance Committee recently is that these identity thieves steal this information so they can then file false tax returns and then claim the refunds or the other credit that those taxpayers would have otherwise been able to receive. Imagine when these 100,000 or so taxpayers go about the business of filing their own tax returns, only to find out that a cyber thief has stolen their identity and filed a tax return and taken their refund or their tax credit before they ever had a chance to do it. At the IRS, we know the breach included access to past tax returns. As we all know, we have to put a lot of sensitive information on tax returns. That is why they are not public information. But they also include sensitive information such as Social Security numbers, addresses, birth dates--all stolen and potentially in the hands of criminals. The hypocrisy of the administration in this area is just breathtaking. It was just June 6--last Saturday--that Josh Earnest, the White House Press Secretary, chastised Congress, on behalf of the President of the United States, for not acting urgently enough on the issue of cyber security. Here is what Mr. Earnest said: ``We need the United States Congress to come out of the Dark Ages and actually join us here in the 21st century to make sure that we have the kinds of defenses that are necessary to protect a modern computer system.'' That is what White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said on June 6, 2015. Then our colleagues on the Democratic side have the temerity to come here and block the very type of legislation that the White House has called for. How hypocritical can you get? How cynical can you get? Indeed, the Democratic leader then says, well, they are doing everything the way they should be doing it, and it is really a Republican conspiracy to shut down the government. These are just the most recent examples of a threat that should be keeping us up at night--a threat that should cause us to quickly act to find solutions to the cyber security threat to the American people and to the United States Government and, yes, to our national security. Some of our Democratic friends act as if the fact that we have decided to file an amendment to the Defense authorization bill, which represents an almost unanimous vote of the bipartisan vote of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was some sort of dirty trick--that we pulled a fast one on them. Well, this legislation has been out there for the world to see for quite a while now, and it was negotiated by the senior Senator from California, the ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Burr, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and as I said, it only had one dissenting vote in the Senate Intelligence Committee. So to have the gall to come on the Senate floor and act as if this is some sort of pulling a fast one or some sort of trick is just disingenuous. I could probably think of some other words to describe it, too, but ``disingenuous'' will have to suffice for now. To come out here and to block debate on a vote on a cyber security bill at a time when the news is chock-full of the nature of this threat and its intrusive invasion into the privacy of the American people and its danger to our national security is just flat out irresponsible. These are not threats we can afford to ignore. And here is the coup de grace--the icing on the cake. Two months ago the Democratic leader came to the floor and said he was ``committed'' to getting cyber security legislation done, and that was before these most recent attacks. So for the Democratic leader to claim this morning that Senate Republicans were--these are his words--using ``deceitful ploys'' to ensure our Nation is safe from these threats is really beyond the pale. In addition to the clear and undeniable urgency of the problem, I would like to also point out that this was the same language that was, as I said, passed out of the Intelligence Committee in March. So perhaps you can understand why I am so confused by our Democratic colleagues' position and actually by the White House's position. The White House called for cyber security legislation. Cyber security legislation gets voted out of the Senate Intelligence Committee 14 to 1. The Democratic leader said we need to act on cyber security, and we try to act on cyber security legislation, only to be blocked by the Democratic leader. All I can see is the Democratic leader's ``commitment'' to work on cyber legislation has given way to partisan gamesmanship by our Democratic colleagues who are promising ``a filibuster summer.'' Well, welcome to the filibuster summer. But this is not what the American people deserve. This isn't why they sent us here, and this is what they affirmatively rejected this last election. But somehow our Democratic colleagues just can't stand it that we have actually turned things around and we have been able to make some slow, incremental progress. We passed the first budget since 2009. You know, that should be a scandal, but I guess it represents progress that we finally have been able to do it with the new majority starting in January. We have worked with the White House to pass trade promotion authority and some things that are tough and are controversial on both sides of the aisle. We have taken a number of positive steps on child trafficking and on a number of other topics. Now we are trying to do our most basic duty and deal with our Nation's defense, and that includes protecting our Nation's cyber security infrastructure while we fund our Armed Forces to make sure they have the resources to do what they volunteered to do so bravely on our behalf. The men and women of this country and particularly the men and women who wear the uniform of the U.S. military deserve better. This National Defense Authorization Act, this basic bill to which the cyber security language was being offered, has strong bipartisan support, and it passed out of the Armed Services Committee overwhelmingly. And do you know what? It even authorizes funding levels at the figure requested by the President of the United States. Yet our Senate Democratic colleagues are still dragging their feet, refusing to allow us to vote on amendments to this bill and defeating the very cyber security provision that the Democratic leader said we ought to get to and that Josh Earnest chastised Congress for not passing. Yet Members of his own political party--the President's own political party--blocked that cyber security legislation. So this bill should not be held hostage to political gamesmanship. The American people's security and safety should not be held hostage to political gamesmanship, and the Senate, which used to be known as the world's greatest deliberative body, should not be used just purely for partisan gain. So I hope that the seven Democrats who actually voted to proceed on this cyber security bill will get some more allies. I can tell that not all of our friends across the aisle are comfortable with the Democratic leader's direction to block this cyber security legislation, and perhaps over the weekend, some will have second thoughts. I hope as they have those second thoughts, they will focus on our collective duty to our troops and their families and to our duty as Members of the Senate to promote and protect the security of the American people. So let's get back to basics. Let's do what the American people elected us to do by voting on a bipartisan bill that will protect our country and provide for our troops. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Ringing Off the Hook: Examining the Proliferation of Unwanted Calls.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources' Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2015, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Wasteful Spending in the Federal Government: An Outside Perspective.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2015, at 1:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 10, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the Federal Regulatory System to Improve Accountability, Transparency and Integrity.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2015, at 2:15 p.m., in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Addressing the Need for Victim Services in Indian Country.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2015, at 9 a.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Health Information Exchange: A Path Towards Improving the Quality and Value of Health Care for Patients.''

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 June 10, 2015, at 5 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Verification and Assessment: How do you create a successful Inspections Regime?''

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 June 10, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Passenger Rail Safety: Accident Prevention and On-Going Efforts to Implement Train Control Technology.''

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 June 10, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2015.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, turning to the underlying legislation that we are debating, the Defense authorization bill, I can't think of anything more basic or fundamental to the Federal Government's responsibility than national security and defense and to make sure we provide our men and women in uniform with the resources they need in order to do the job they volunteered to do on our behalf. Of course, many of us have commented time and again on this floor and elsewhere about the increasing complexity of the threats facing our national security and the security and peace of the world. This legislation enables our troops to get the funding and the resources and the authorities they need in order to have success on the battlefield. As we consider the current state of the world, it is clear why this bill is vital. We live in a world marked by constant dynamic threats to our way of life. For example, parts of the Middle East and North Africa have been overrun by the Islamic State, and the region continues to be a hotbed of failed states and ungoverned places. If we have learned anything from 9/11, it is that ungoverned spaces are a threat to our national security, because that is where our adversaries will organize and train and then export those threats to our homeland. Despite ongoing negotiations, Iran remains an enemy of the United States and continues its campaign to achieve regional domination and become a threshold nuclear State, threatening our most trusted allies and partners in the region. In Europe and in Asia, Russia and China continue to threaten our allies in their respective neighborhoods, using a growing array of soft-power and hard-power tactics to twist arms and to coerce our friends and allies. These new dynamic threats include cyber attacks, which have been much in the news today, including espionage and just outright theft of our intellectual property in seed corn created from the brains and ingenuity of American entrepreneurs and creators. Today, our courageous men and women in uniform are tasked with the challenge of facing these many threats and many others in regions all around the world. So it is astounding to me that the Democratic leader, in the face of these threats and in the face of our grave responsibilities to meet these challenges, would come to the floor and suggest that debating this bill would be what he called a ``waste of time'' and go further to say that the Democratic minority would consider filibustering this legislation. It is just unbelievable. This blatant disregard for our responsibilities and for our troops is very troubling, particularly because this bill has historically been one that has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. In fact, as our colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona, pointed out in an op-ed he wrote yesterday, Congress has passed a Defense authorization bill for 53 consecutive years--53 consecutive years--because it is a national priority. It should be, and it is. Up to now, this bill has been marked by strong bipartisan backing in the committee. The bill sailed through the Senate Armed Services Committee with a bipartisan vote of 22 to 4. We don't get much more bipartisan in today's Senate than that. Yet, with all of the support from both sides of the aisle and even with such a clearly demonstrated need as the funding and well-being of our troops and their families, the President himself--the Commander in Chief--has threatened to veto this bill--a bill that actually provides the full funding levels he himself requested. It is important to note--because some of our colleagues on the other side have said that the problem with this bill is that it doesn't spend enough money or that we ought to reallocate our nondefense discretionary spending to increase that, as well--that this bill includes the exact same level of funding that President Obama himself requested in his budget. So why in the world would the President threaten to veto a bill that meets the funding levels that he himself identified in his budget? For some reason, instead of focusing on our most fundamental responsibilities of funding the brave men and women in our Armed Forces and making sure they have the resources they need to keep our country safe, our Commander in Chief and the minority leader are threatening to hold this bill hostage to extract more government spending for nondefense discretionary spending for organizations and agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service. So why in the world would we hold national security spending hostage so we can spend more money on the IRS? It is just a complete upside-down view of our priorities. So the President's lack of strategic depth or his understanding of our Nation's most fundamental duties is really astounding. I am troubled to say this, but I think it is actually true: I think the President understands our Nation's fundamental duties very clearly. The problem is that this threat to hold this bill hostage is just cynical. It just uses a political tool to try to gain advantage when it comes to raising the caps on nondefense discretionary spending. For a President who admits that he doesn't have a complete strategy to defeat the Islamic State, I find his comments to be irresponsible. He is threatening to veto this bill to satisfy the far leftwing of his party, which doesn't believe government could ever spend too much money and that government is ever big enough. The government is never big enough or spends enough for some of our colleagues across the aisle and some of the political base in the President's party. Just this morning, the Washington Post reported that Senate Democrats have now come up with a brand-new political strategy, and this time they are going further--to threaten to block all funding bills for the rest of the summer, including the Defense appropriations bill, which I know the majority leader is scheduling to be debated and voted on right after we complete our work on this legislation. As a matter of fact, the Democratic leader said this morning: ``We're headed for another shutdown.'' Senator Reid said: ``They did it once, they're going to do it again. . . . They want to wait until the fiscal year ends and then close up government.'' It is bad enough that Democrats are threatening to filibuster the defense spending bill, but now they are claiming that it is really the Republicans' fault. In other words, they are saying: We are not for stopping the Defense authorization bill. We are for funding our national responsibilities when it comes to national security. But because our Democratic friends wish to hold the Defense authorization bill and the Defense appropriations bill hostage, they somehow now are claiming that we are the ones responsible. Because we won't accede to their insatiable demand for bigger government and more government spending, and we won't allow them to hold our troops and their families and our national security hostage, we are the ones at fault. But, today, as we know, thanks to the Washington Post, the filibustering of this and other bills is just part of a political strategy. One point I have to acknowledge is the candor of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. If we want to know what they are planning to do, all we have to do is read the newspaper, because they are more than happy to tell us exactly what they are going to do and what their plans are. This is all part of a cynical political strategy to keep the Senate from working and to deny funding to our Armed Forces while bulking up Federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the IRS. This is shameless, and it is hypothetical, and the American people will not be fooled by it. I wish to remind our colleagues across the aisle that stifling debate and blocking votes is a pretty lousy political strategy, as well. It is what lost them control of this Chamber last November. It is a losing strategy, it is bad policy, it is cynical politics, and the American people understand that. It is simply shameful that they are trying to use our troops, who protect this great Nation, as some sort of leverage in some sort of political game. I don't have to remind the Presiding Officer, who continues to serve honorably in our military services, that we live in a very dangerous world. Somehow, we don't pay enough attention to that until something reaches out and bites us or injures someone we love. Our Armed Forces face new and growing threats on a daily basis. Our troops deserve our full attention and every resource they need as they serve and defend our country around the world. So that is why I have come to the floor, to say: Why in the world, after 53 consecutive Defense authorization bills, would the Democratic leader--and indeed with the complicity of the President of the United States himself--say they are going to hold this Defense bill hostage until they get what they want when it comes to spending more money? This bipartisan bill, which focuses squarely on the needs of our warfighters and authorizes funding at the same level the President himself suggested, should not be held hostage to political gamesmanship. So I would encourage the more sensible Members across the aisle to focus on the troops and their families, not on the partisan agenda of their leadership, and pass this legislation to provide the funding our troops need to continue to do their courageous work of keeping our country safe. One way my colleagues could play a constructive role and move this legislation forward, instead of threatening to filibuster, is to work with us on commonsense amendments, such as the one I have filed that is pending on the underlying bill. Under current law, the President has discretion to allow energy exports to vulnerable allies, our partners in Europe, and around the world when it is deemed to be in our national interest. The amendment I have offered in the underlying bill simply reaffirms the existing authority of the President of the United States but encourages the President not to allow our adversaries, such as Vladimir Putin, to use energy supplies for vulnerable countries in Europe as a weapon. It would also commission a report that would allow us to get an accurate assessment of just how dependent our allies in the region are on those who would wield their energy supply as a weapon. This amendment is a commonsense measure that serves as a first step to addressing the requests--the pleas in some cases--of our allies and partners in an increasingly unpredictable world, and it doesn't change the existing authority the President already has. I would urge our colleagues to put down the political playbook and work with us in a constructive way on the underlying legislation. This has been the great tradition of the Defense authorization bill and one that is being threatened by the political gamesmanship that we see threatened by the Democratic leader and, indeed, even with the complicity and the fingerprints of the President of the United States. We owe it and so much more to our troops, who are relying on us to act today. Even more than that, we have a duty to the country to make sure we maintain the security of the American people. I yield the floor. Mr. President, 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 Florida (Mr. Rubio) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, regular order.