John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this Chamber is currently having a very important debate about our national security priorities, including the authorized funding levels for our Nation's Armed Forces. But I would like to speak just briefly about an element of our national security that is often overlooked, and that has to do with the interconnection between our energy resources here in America and global security. I will start by quoting the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Martin Dempsey, who said: ``I think we've got to pay more and particular attention to energy as an instrument of national power.'' Well, I could not agree, in this instance, with General Dempsey more. So I want to again address a way in which I believe the United States can utilize our vast domestic energy resources to not only enhance our economy but also help enhance our national security and help us meet our strategic objectives around the world and specifically by helping many of our NATO allies in Europe in this process. As I mentioned on the floor last week, many of these countries rely heavily on energy resources from Russia, creating strategic vulnerability for them as well as for the United States, their treaty ally. This is not a hypothetical matter because we know Vladimir Putin has literally turned the spigot off to countries like Ukraine and threatens to do so to Europe if they happen to disagree with Russian policy, particularly with regard to its expropriation of Crimea and Ukraine. But the United States can use its energy resources to reassure our allies and partners and to lessen, reduce, at the same time, their dependence on bad actors like Russia and Iran. So it is as simple as helping our friends and checking the abuse of power by our adversaries. Now, while allowing energy exports to some of our allies when their security is threatened probably sounds like a commonsense notion to a lot of people, there are some skeptics. One of our colleagues, the junior Senator from Massachusetts, has suggested that approving crude oil exports to anybody--including on a limited basis to our allies who are being coerced and under duress from Vladimir Putin--that somehow that would result in a tax on consumers at the pump. In other words, he is arguing that exporting our natural resources around the world would actually cause gasoline prices to go up. Well, I am here to say that is a faulty assumption and it is simply not grounded in fact. It is at odds with the research and leading opinions of multiple experts, think tank organizations, and officials. And you know what. It is even at odds with the Obama administration's leading expert in this field. Here is what Secretary Moniz said on February 12, 2015, about the effect of crude oil exports on U.S. gas prices. He said there would be no effect on gas prices. He said: ``And their [EIA's] conclusion was, probably none to possibly minor decreases in domestic prices.'' So if you think about it, actually more American supply increases the world's supply of oil. Indeed, gasoline is already sold around the world at a global price. So more supply of oil, which is the chief component of gasoline, would actually increase the supply. Even according to a recovering lawyer who is not an economist, on a supply- and-demand basis, with static demand increasing, the supply is actually going to bring down the price. The Energy Secretary is not the only one who believes there will either be no change or actually a downward price to consumers on gasoline. After reviewing several studies on this issue, the Government Accountability Office noted that ``consumer fuel prices, such as gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, could decrease as a result of removing crude oil export restrictions.'' So this is the Government Accountability Office that said that, actually confirming, essentially, what Secretary Moniz said; that we would actually see gasoline prices go down at the pump were we to lift this domestic sanction we have imposed upon ourselves when it comes to exporting crude. Another think tank, the Aspen Institute, said it would have ``significant positive and durable effects on [our gross domestic product], aggregate employment and income.'' The Aspen Institute, just as another example, thinks it would be good for income, it would be good for jobs, it would be good for our economy. So it seems the only people who do not think lifting the ban would be good are limited to the Halls of Congress or perhaps some of the lobbyists who raise money scaring people when it comes to the use of our fossil fuels, particularly oil and gas. While I think it is important to come and rebut this faulty argument, the amendment that is pending to the underlying bill is actually much more narrowly targeted. It simply ensures that we will have a reliable sense of the energy vulnerabilities of our European partners. In fact, we are a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and under article 5, were they to be attacked, all members of the treaty would be required to come to their assistance. So why in the world would we not want to reduce their vulnerability to economic hostage-taking? We also want to get a better understanding of Russia's ability to use this dependency against our allies in NATO and Europe in general. So my amendment would allow us to see the big picture when it comes to just how dependent our allies in the region are on nations that wield their energy supply as a weapon. Now, I just want to make clear my amendment would actually not change any of the current law. It would not change any of the current law. It simply restates the current authority that the President has in his discretion to allow crude oil and natural gas exports, if determined to be consistent with the national interest. I would say, even though Russia and Europe and NATO are the primary focus, this is not just limited to NATO. It could include important allies of ours in the Middle East, like Israel, as well. My amendment reiterates this existing authority, and it encourages the President to use it to help reduce the vulnerabilities of our allies in Europe and around the world when it is determined to be in our national interest. It does not add to that authority, and it does not constrain it either. Well, the President just returned from the so-called G7 summit-- representing the leading seven economies of the free world--and here is what the G7 said about this topic. The G7 leaders said that ``we reaffirm our support for Ukraine and other vulnerable countries . . . and reiterate that energy should not be used as a means of political coercion or as a threat to security.'' So if that is the position of the G7, if the Obama administration takes the position that lifting the ban on exports of oil will not do anything to raise the price of gasoline at the pump and could well reduce it, then I think the Senate would be well advised to support the amendment I have offered which, again, just restates the current authority, does not expand it, and then asks the Defense Department and the intelligence community to do an assessment of how we can better understand the role our energy assets play as an element of our soft power and national security. Our allies are pretty clear-eyed about all this. They recognize that shrinking their dependence will not be complete or easy. But one goal this amendment seeks to recognize is that we have allies that are asking for help that will put them on a path toward less reliance and will put Russia on notice that they will not be able to hold these countries hostage to energy. This is about options, alternatives, and a stable supply on the world market that are all helped by increased U.S. production and this renaissance in natural gas and oil that has been brought about thanks to the great innovation and technology improvements in the private sector, created here in the United States but benefiting the entire world. The G7 leaders noted that the diversification of the world's energy supply is ``a core element of energy security,'' including a diversity of ``energy mix[es], energy fuels, sources, and routes.'' So my amendment is based on the idea that we may supplement the global market, and that ultimately brings about increased diversity in fuel supply, which benefits everyone. My amendment is not about limiting the President's authority under current law. I did not intend to do that. This amendment does not do it. It is about taking a modest first step toward addressing the requests, the pleas, in some cases, of our allies and our partners in an increasingly unpredictable world. So I would encourage our colleagues to support this amendment and, in doing so, take the long-term view of our national security interests as well as the peace and stability of our most trusted allies and partners. I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. President, if I may withhold that request. I ask unanimous consent that the time in the quorum call be equally divided.

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

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

Mr. CORNYN. I will be glad to restate it. I am asking unanimous consent that the time in the quorum call be equally divided between the sides.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

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

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesies of the chairman and the ranking member to allow this amendment to be called up and to give me a chance to explain its importance and how it fits into the national security strategy of the United States. I know we don't typically tend to think of our energy resources as being an element of our national strength and power that we can project beyond our borders in a way that helps aid our allies and friends and reduces the influence of our adversaries, such as Iran and Russia, but I hope my colleagues will take a close look at this amendment and, when the time comes, vote to support it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we begin this very important discussion about how we go about the business of defending our country and preserving the peace and our national security, I think it is really important we look at all of the elements of American power. We are very familiar with the fact that we have the world's best military--best equipped, best trained, with the most technologically advanced weapons systems. But we also ought to look at America's other sources of great power, and that means things such as soft power. Let me explain. Here is the problem. Many NATO countries--our allies in Europe, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries--many of which are former satellites of the Soviet Union and are now being intimidated by the Russian Federation, rely heavily on energy resources from Russia, creating what I think can euphemistically be called a strategic vulnerability. Many of them are just downright scared about what it means in terms of their ability to survive a Russian intimidation. According to a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by former National Security Advisor Steven Hadley and former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, 14 countries that are a part of NATO buy 15 percent or more of their oil from Russia. The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who is not on the floor right now, famously said: Russia is a gas station masquerading as a nation. It produces prodigious sources of energy, but, unfortunately, they view energy as one of their weapons. So the fact that 14 of these NATO countries buy 15 percent or more of their oil from Russia is a real vulnerability for them. Several other countries in Eastern and Central Europe buy more than 50 percent of their energy supply from Russia. As I said, Russia has huge sources of oil and gas, but they are using them not only as a source of economic strength and to provide for the Russian people, but they are using them as a source of intimidation and coercion. For example, in January of 2009, Russia effectively turned off the natural gas to Ukraine. This affected at least 10 countries in Europe that rely upon natural gas that crosses Ukraine from Russia. According to a report released last fall from the European Commission, several countries in Europe could lose up to 60 percent of their gas supply if their supply lines from Russia are disrupted. That is the problem. Here is what I propose is one of the things we can do about it. The United States, of course, has experienced an energy renaissance in recent years, thanks to the technology produced by the private sector-- most specifically, the use of fracking in conjunction with horizontal drilling--which has turned America into an energy powerhouse. Not that many years ago, people were talking about peak oil. In other words, they basically were making the argument that all the oil that could have been produced was being produced, and we would now then be in a period of decline. That proved to be wrong. Now, thanks to this huge production of American energy, we know we can use our ample energy resources not only to supply our own needs here at home but to use the surplus to reassure our allies and our partners and to reduce their dependence on bad actors, such as Russia and Iran. If we think about it, some of the sanctions which we have deployed against both Iran and Russia for their bad behavior--one of the most effective ones is the indirect sanction of lower oil and gas prices because, frankly, Mr. Putin has calculated that oil prices would remain very high, and when they get low, that means he doesn't have the financial wherewithal in order to make some of the mischief that he and Iran are so noted for. The United States, of course, has significantly diversified our energy resources. The United States has consumed the lowest level of imported petroleum in the last 30 years. That was this last year. Let me repeat that lest it be lost. Last year, the United States consumed the lowest level of imported petroleum in the last 30 years. According to the International Energy Agency, today the United States is the largest oil and natural gas liquids producer in the world, surpassing Saudi Arabia, for example. I have filed a number of amendments, and I intend to call up one of those in a moment, but let me describe briefly the amendments we have filed that I think help provide some progress toward a solution for the problem I have described. In light of this new geopolitical landscape, I have offered several amendments that would further our strategic position in the world while also strengthening our allies, making them less vulnerable to the intimidation and bullying tactics of the Russian Federation under Vladimir Putin. These amendments aim to help NATO and our other allies in Europe diversify their energy resources and lessen their dependency on energy supplies of some of our major adversaries such as Russia and Iran. The first amendment would point out the existing authorities the President already has under current law related to energy exports if he determines it is in our national interests. Of course, this is an authority under current law that applies not only to the present occupant of the White House but would also apply to his successor. This amendment expresses the sense of the Congress that the President should exercise these current authorities to aid our allies and partners in Europe and elsewhere. To help the United States get smart on how Russia currently uses its energy program as a weapon against our allies and partners, this amendment would mandate also an intelligence assessment to better understand the vulnerabilities of NATO and our other allies and partners in Europe. Then, it would also expand the requirements of the Pentagon's annual Russia military power report to mandate analysis of Russia's ability to use energy supplies as a tool of coercion or intimidation against our allies and partners in Europe. So this would restate the present authorities the President of the United States currently has to produce and sell oil and gas to our allies in Europe, such as Ukraine and other NATO allies. It would require an additional intelligence assessment to make sure we understand fully the implications of this vulnerability that Europe and our NATO allies have to Russia and its intimidation tactics. Third, it would expand the requirements of a current report that the Pentagon makes on an annual basis called the Russian military power report to mandate an analysis of Russia's ability to use energy supplies as a tool of coercion or intimidation. Two other amendments which we filed--which I will not call up at this time--would help reduce the need for U.S. allies to purchase energy from Russia and Iran. It would do this by adding a specific exception to the law that would allow crude and natural gas exports to allies and partners when their energy security is compromised. For example, if a NATO ally or partner--such as Ukraine or Japan-- requests additional energy exports from the United States, the President must approve it in a timely fashion if he finds it to be in the national interests of the United States. This would provide our allies and our partners with an additional source of fuel and a little additional reassurance that if they are subjected to the kind of intimidation and coercion I mentioned a moment ago, that we, as their friend and their ally, would supply them with an alternative source of energy they need in order to keep the lights on and keep their economy running. Finally, we filed an amendment that would amend the Natural Gas Act to require the Secretary of Energy to approve liquefied natural gas exports to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries and other named partners and allies. This uses the same preferential treatment that is already given to our free-trade agreement partners, which are automatically deemed to be in the public interest. In conclusion, these amendments are designed to address a very specific problem and a very specific vulnerability of some of our closest allies in Europe and to relieve them from some of the pressure of Russian intimidation and coercion when Russia attempts to use energy as a weapon. We can use this as an important element of our soft power to help our allies relieve this coercion and intimidation. These amendments would strengthen the strategic hand of the United States in a world that grows more complicated by the day, not to mention more dangerous. I encourage my colleagues to support them and, by doing so, take a long-term view of our own national security as well as the peace and stability of some of our most trusted allies and partners. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up amendment No. 1486.

Mr. CORNYN

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

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

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

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the Senate will hold a series of votes this afternoon on the underlying bill, and I think it is important for all of us to understand exactly what those amendments will do. The underlying House bill makes some changes in the way the National Security Agency operates and uses what the Supreme Court of the United States has held is not private information--in other words, the time, duration, and number involved in a telephone call that is contained in a typical telephone bill. The Supreme Court of the United States has said there is no right of privacy in that information. As the Senate knows, what the House bill does is it leaves these phone records in the possession of the telephone company. Then, over a period of 6 months, the National Security Agency is supposed to come up with a means of querying those records in the possession of the various phone companies. Some, like me, have wondered why it is that we are trying to fix a system that is not broken, because there is absolutely no documented record of any abuse of this information as it is currently retained by the NSA. The way it is used is to help the intelligence community discover people who have communicated with known or suspected terrorists abroad in a way that will help to provide an additional piece of data that will hopefully help them prevent terrorist attacks from occurring on our home soil. The FBI Director has said that in the 56 field offices in the United States, every single one of these field offices has an open inquiry with regard to potential homegrown terrorist attacks. As I mentioned before, in Garland, TX, just a few weeks ago, two men traveled from Phoenix, AZ, and obtained full-body armor and automatic weapons and were prepared to wreak havoc and murder innocent people in Garland, TX, because they were exercising their First Amendment rights and were displaying cartoons that these two jihadists felt insulted the Prophet Muhammad. Thanks to the good police work of a Garland police officer, both of those people were taken out of action before they could kill anybody there at that site. But why in the world would we want to take away from our intelligence authorities the ability to detect whether individuals, such as these two jihadists from Phoenix who traveled to Garland, had been communicating with known terrorist telephone numbers in Syria or anywhere else in the world? These are foreign telephone numbers that are matched up and provide an essential link and, really, a tripwire for the intelligence community. What the amendments that we will vote on this afternoon would do is to slow the transition from NSA storage to the telephone company stewardship from the 6 months prescribed in the underlying bill. For those who believe that the underlying bill is the correct policy, I do not know why they would object to a little bit of extra time so we can make sure that this is going to work as intended. Indeed, the second amendment does relate specifically to that. It would require a certification by the Director of National Intelligence that the software is actually in place that will allow the National Security Agency to query the phone records in the possession of the telephone companies. Another amendment would provide that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which is a group of experienced Federal judges who review the requests from the FBI and other law enforcement authorities, would be able to query these telephone records. It would establish a panel of experts, so to speak, to argue against the government's case in front of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. As somebody who used to be a judge for some time, this is a rather strange provision because what it does, essentially, is to put a defense attorney in the grand jury room and create an adversarial process at the early stages of an investigation, which may or may not lead up to an indictment in that case. The final amendment would require the phone companies to notify Congress if they are going to change their policy for retaining customer records. This is a serious concern because it could well be that some telephone companies will start marketing to potential customers that they will not retain any records, thus eliminating an important tool which helps keep Americans safe and has absolutely zero threat to civil liberties. There has been so much misrepresentation about what this so-called metadata program has done. I think that is one of the reasons we find ourselves here today. Many who believe the program is useful are reluctant to even talk about it in public because, as we know, so much of what is done to protect our country is classified. So rather than have a public debate and actually correct the misstatements of fact and the demagoguery that unfortunately attends this subject, many people are simply confused about what exactly is going on and what Congress is doing. But I would just point out that oversight of these programs is absolutely rigorous. It is executive, judicial, and legislative oversight. It is not a matter of trust as to whether these programs work the way they are supposed to; it is actually verified on a regular basis, universally verified. Also, we have to go before these Federal judges known as a FISA Court--a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court--in order to make our case. Unless we can make our case to these judges that there is reason to continue the investigation, they will shut it down. One of the things I think we have forgotten is that we want to treat intelligence gathering and prevention as we do ordinary law enforcement. What I mean by that is that ordinarily, in the criminal law context, government doesn't get involved in a case unless something bad has already happened. If there has been an explosion or a murder or a bank robbery or something like that, it is after the fact that we try to figure out what happened and then, if we can, to identify the perpetrator and to bring them to justice. That satisfies an important need in our society to enforce our criminal law, but that is far different from what our intelligence community is supposed to be doing because they are supposed to be detecting threats and intervening in those ongoing schemes and stopping them before they ultimately occur. That is the important lesson we learned on 9/11. Unfortunately, it has been so long ago now that many people have simply forgotten or they don't feel as though this is an imminent threat. But when Director Comey says they have open inquiries in all 56 FBI field offices about the potential threat of homegrown terrorists, I take that very seriously. I believe it is absolutely reckless for us to take any unnecessary chances. There are some who say this underlying bill is important because instead of the National Security Agency collecting these telephone numbers, we are going to leave the data with the telephone companies. But none of the people who are going to be querying these records at the phone companies have security clearances. One can just imagine the potential for abuse at the phone companies of these phone records once they receive some sort of request from the government. We know the current system as run at the National Security Agency is subject to rigorous oversight, as I mentioned. In addition to the executive, judicial, and legislative oversight, we actually have a private and civil liberties oversight board which makes sure that we strike the right balance. Nobody wants to see the privacy rights of American citizens undermined, but we all are adult enough to know that there has to be a balance and that in order to provide for security and to avoid terrorist attacks such as occurred on 9/11, we are going to have to take some actions to reach the right balance, and I believe the current law does that. Unfortunately, we have a traitor such as Edward Snowden who selectively leaked certain portions of this program, and it has created an uproar. I think that unfortunately, as a result of his leaks and the ensuing political environment after that, America is at greater risk, and that is a terrible shame. So I think it is reckless to take a chance. We have been fortunate that there have been no terrorist attacks on our homeland since 9/11. Well, I take that back. Five years ago, at Fort Hood, MAJ Nidal Hasan killed 13 people and injured 30-something more. Of course, we know now that he had been in constant communication over the Internet with Anwar al-Awlaki, who subsequently was killed in a drone strike--even though he was an American citizen--overseas. He was overseas because he was recruiting people to Islamic extremism, including Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 people at Fort Hood 5 years ago. It is simply a fact that the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution involving searches and seizures doesn't apply to foreign terrorists; it applies to Americans. Under the procedures used under current law, all requests for additional information are subject to Federal court supervision and permission. So we will vote on a number of amendments this afternoon. I can tell my colleagues, after talking to a number of our colleagues, many of them have said they don't really have any disagreement over the content or the policy of these amendments. Actually, these amendments are designed to try to strengthen the underlying House bill. We all understand that the House is going to prevail in the basic structure of the underlying piece of legislation, but since when did the U.S. Senate outsource its decisionmaking to the other body across the Capitol? We have a bicameral legislature--a Senate and a House--for a reason. We know we make better decisions when we have consultation between the two branches of the legislature--not capitulation but consultation. The Senate should not be a rubberstamp for the House or vice versa. I have heard some of our colleagues say that if the Senate were to change a period or a comma or a dash in the underlying legislation, it would be a poison pill, that the House would reject it and we would have nothing to show for our efforts. But I have great faith that if the Senate will do its job and vote to pass these underlying amendments and strengthen this underlying bill, the House will take up the bill and vote on it and it will pass. So if my colleagues feel as though these amendments would actually strengthen the underlying House bill and represent good policy, why in the world would they vote against these amendments because of some fantasy that the House will simply reject any changes at all? Why would they essentially capitulate any of their prerogatives as U.S. Senators to represent their constituents in this body? We all know we make better decisions in consultation with other people. Certainly I think it is true that the House's bill is not holy writ. It is not something we have to accept in its entirety without any changes. I think where the policy debate should go would be to embrace these amendments and to say that we understand the House wants to change the current custody policy of these phone records and leave them with the phone company, but we sure need to know the new system will actually work. Doesn't that make sense? That is why the certification from the Director of National Intelligence is so important. It makes sense to provide a little bit more time--from 6 months to a year--in order to make sure this transition goes smoothly. I know no Member of the Senate and no Member of the House and no American wants to look back on our hasty treatment of this underlying legislation and say: If we were just a little more careful, if we had just taken a little bit more time, if we had just been a little more thoughtful, a little more deliberative, and talked about the facts as they are and not some misrepresentation of the facts, we could have actually prevented a terrorist attack on our home soil. Unfortunately, by increasing the risk to the American people, as I believe this underlying legislation will do, we may not find out about that until it is too late. I hope and pray that is not the case, but why should we take the risk to the homeland? Why should we risk anyone being injured or potentially killed as a result of a homegrown terrorist attack on our own soil because we have simply blinded ourselves in a significant way to the risks? Not that this is a panacea, not that this is some litmus test, but it is one essential piece of information that will help law enforcement make the case to not just prosecute crimes after they occur but to prevent them from occurring in the first place through the good and sound use of constitutional intelligence gathering in a way that respects the privacy of all Americans but lives up to our first and foremost responsibility, and that is to keep the American people safe. Madam President, I yield to the distinguished ranking member.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 2, 2015, at 10 a.m. in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled `` Internal Revenue Service Data Theft Affecting Taxpayer Information.''

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 June 2, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office building.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 2, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Perspectives on the Export-Import Bank of the United States.''

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 2, 2015, at 5 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Understanding Iran's Nuclear Program.''

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 2, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a Subcommittee hearing entitled ``Lifeline: Improving Accountability and Effectiveness.''

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 2, 2015, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The IRS Data Breach: Steps to protect Americans' Personal Information.''

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 2, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.