John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I as unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a Subcommittee hearing entitled ``Improvements and Innovations in Fishery Management and Data Collection.''

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. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the latest example of President Obama's failure to lead in the international arena, to the detriment of our national security and the security of our allies. Over the weekend, the Iraqi city of Ramadi in Anbar Province--which is about 70 miles from Baghdad--fell to ISIL. Once a hotbed of Al Qaeda activity, Ramadi had been won back and pacified at great costs in 2006 and 2007. That accomplishment was made possible due to the heroic efforts of some great Americans, such as Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, a Texan whom Al Qaeda called ``the Devil of Ramadi'' and whose service was chronicled in the book and the movie ``American Sniper,'' and LTG Sean McFarland, whose soldiers implemented a brilliant counterinsurgency strategy to win over the local population and drive out Al Qaeda in the process. By the way, we are proud to have General McFarland today serving as commanding general of III Corps at Fort Hood, TX. ISIL's latest raid and capture of Ramadi is a significant setback for all of us who seek a stable and prosperous Iraq, and it represents this terrorist army's biggest military victory this year. Reports of the ISIL takeover of Ramadi are staggering. Faced with the oncoming ISIL forces, hundreds of Ramadi police and security officials fled the city, leaving behind American-made military equipment, including as many as 50 vehicles, now in the hands of our enemies. Those who managed to escape reported that many security officials, government workers, and even civilians were quickly killed execution- style. In response, the Iraqi Government deployed its Shiite paramilitary troops to the province--a move that some experts believe could lead to even more sectarian strife. The Iraqis are looking for support almost anywhere they can get it, and in the vacuum left by President Obama's poor leadership and indecision, Iran is more than happy to fill that vacuum and take up the slack. It should come as no surprise that on Monday, the day after the fall of Ramadi, Iran's Defense Minister arrived in Baghdad to hold consultations with the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. Obviously, I am frustrated by the President's lack of leadership and by the Obama administration's failure to put together a strong and cohesive strategy to combat ISIL, but it is more serious than that. It is about what we have squandered in Iraq, what we bought with the blood of Americans and the money that came out of the pockets of American citizens. Since ISIL began taking large swaths of territory last summer, this administration has taken an approach of paralysis by analysis--in other words, doing nothing. When they do take action, it seems ad hoc and piecemeal and not driven by overarching objectives or any strategy that is apparent to me. I am not the only one who believes we do not have a strategy in the Middle East. This President's own former Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, said yesterday: ``We're basically sort of playing this [instability in the Middle East] day to day.'' After affirming his belief that we have enduring interests in the region, Secretary Gates then added: ``But I certainly don't think we have a strategy.'' I could not agree more with him. Unfortunately, this takeover of Ramadi serves as just the latest example of a President whose policies are altogether rudderless in the Middle East, even as that region is riled with growing instability and grotesque violence. We can trace that to what happened in the area just a few years ago. I alluded to this a moment ago. In 2011, after the President ended negotiations with the Iraqis on a status of forces agreement, the Obama administration proceeded with a misguided plan to pull the plug on American presence in that country. In doing so, he squandered the blood and treasure of Americans who fought to give the people of Iraq a chance. While it is true that the Iraqis had not agreed to the U.S. conditions to an enduring American presence, including legal immunity for our troops, this administration gave up and failed to expend the political capital necessary to secure a status of forces agreement and to preserve the security gains we had made together with our allies in Iraq. As a result, those security gains made in many areas of Iraq since the height of the violence in 2005 and 2006 have since evaporated. In 2012, as terrorist groups were flourishing in Syria, the President refused to initiate a program to arm vetted moderate Syrian rebels, disregarding the recommendations made by his most senior advisers, including then-CIA Director David Petraeus, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, and then- Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. He rejected the advice from his most senior national security adviser. Instead, the President publicly remarked in January of last year that ISIL was the JV team of terrorist groups. And just a few months ago, President Obama boldly said that ISIL was ``on the defensive.'' Let me repeat that. Just a few months ago, President Obama claimed ISIL was ``on the defensive.'' That is not exactly the case today, nor was it really then. That is not exactly the kind of leadership we need from our Commander in Chief. By giving our troops a difficult mission to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL but not providing them with the strategy and the resources they need to do so, the President is essentially making them operate with one more hand tied behind their back. We know we have the most capable military in the world, but we cannot win a fight with our hands tied behind our backs or with these constraints--politically correct constraints--the President wants to make and not commit the resources and the strategy and the focus we need in order to win. So I hope the President will reconsider after this latest dramatic setback in Ramadi. I hope President Obama will provide us with a strategy to degrade and destroy ISIL. In Ramadi--a major city and capital of Iraq's largest province--we see much more than just a symbolic setback, and I bet Chairman Dempsey wishes he could take those words back--he called it merely symbolic. We see a dangerous development and a great obstacle to a more stable Iraq and thus a more stable Middle East. But this is what gets to me: We had more than 1,000 brave American troops die in Anbar Province during combat operations since 2003. I do not want to see their lives having been given in vain and squandered. So I hope that this is a wake-up call to the Obama administration and that they will provide the Congress and the American people and our troops a clear path forward to defeat ISIL and to rid the world of this terror army. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this Chamber has now turned its consideration to trade promotion authority, or TPA. I am a supporter of this legislation because my State is the largest exporting State in the country, and I think our economy and the number of jobs that are created in Texas are reflective of our strong commitment to international trade. We simply find the point inarguable that to open new markets to the products that our agricultural sectors grow, our ranchers raise, and our manufacturers make seems to be such an obvious thing to do. That is why I am a big supporter of this legislation. It is not something that just helps businesses; it helps consumers, too. Reducing the protections for domestically produced goods helps consumers most dramatically. It helps with their cost of living and helps make their daily or weekly or monthly paycheck go a little bit further. Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. exports to trade-pact countries were growing at a far higher rate than exports to nontrade-pact countries. So if we get this TPA passed and the United States enters into one of these agreements under negotiation, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we could see American exports to the region skyrocket. This region in particular involves 11 other countries and makes up about 40 percent of the world's economy, and, of course, it would be a ready-market for U.S. products, from beef to electronics. The reason why trade promotion authority is so important is because it makes no sense--in fact, I think it is almost impossible--to negotiate a trade deal with 535 Members of Congress. Congress gives the President the authority within very firm and clear directives on how the President's U.S. trade administration should negotiate this. Frankly, I think this is one area where we have bipartisan agreement that this is good. So why wouldn't we work together in the best interests of the American people and our economy? Trade doesn't just help businesses, as I have said; trade and TPA also help the consumer by driving down prices they pay every day at the drugstore, the grocery store, the hardware store--you name it. This legislation is good for American exporters and good for American consumers. Put simply, trade is good for America. Let me reiterate that this bill is not filled with partisan rhetoric. It is actually a very simple trade tool that will give Congress the authority to examine any upcoming trade deal the President is trying to cut and make sure the American people get a fair shake. I have heard several of our colleagues say they have gone down to a room to look at what has so far been negotiated on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That is a good thing, but the fact is that negotiations aren't complete. That is not the whole deal; it is just a start. Many of the provisions in the TPA are just commonsense proposals. For example, if passed, TPA would give Congress the authority to access the full text of the trade agreement. Of course, it is hard to get more straightforward than that. It would also make sure there is greater transparency and accountability in the negotiation process, with regular briefings by the administration to Congress and Members allowed to actually attend the negotiations. In short, this trade legislation will provide Congress the needed oversight of the trade negotiations and will act as a safeguard for American interests to make sure our markets and our goods and services remain competitive in the global marketplace. Finally, I would like to say that this is a reminder of how the Senate should function--as a deliberative body that votes regularly on a bipartisan basis to do something important to help hard-working American families. We vote. I hope we will have a series of votes later this afternoon. I think having an open amendment process, as the majority leader has promised, is something that has been found to be a welcome development not just for the majority but also for the minority, which I know wants to participate in the process and thus represent their constituents to the best of their ability. Although some of my colleagues from across the aisle do not support this legislation, I hope they don't block it and prevent those of us who are interested in passing a good trade promotion authority piece of legislation from working productively. I would encourage all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to offer their amendments so that the Senate can debate them and vote on them. That is our job as the elected representatives of the American people. I see TPA as a real opportunity to help American workers earn higher wages and send more American-made products around the world. I encourage our colleagues to support this bill and in doing so to lend support to the hard-working Americans who increasingly rely on trade to support their families. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it was just a few weeks ago that the Senate took up and passed S. 178, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. This bill took us a while to get through but ultimately garnered unanimous support from this Chamber with a vote of 99 to 0. I am happy to report that the House of Representatives will take up and pass this bill later on today, and this vital legislation will then head to the President for his signature. I thank my colleague and friend and fellow Texan, Representative Ted Poe of Houston, for serving as the chief House sponsor for this legislation. I also express my gratitude to the House leadership team and Chairman Goodlatte of the House Judiciary Committee for their important work on this issue. This legislation, as we said before, will provide victims of sexual exploitation, slavery, and human trafficking in the United States with an avenue to find healing and restoration. Most importantly, the victims, who are often children, will have access to additional resources to ensure that they get the shelter and the services they need. I am thankful that Members from both Chambers and from both sides of the aisle were able to recognize the urgency of the matter and get the job done. While this bill represents a step forward, there is more we need to do and more we will do to continue to fight the scourge of human trafficking. In the coming years, we will look back on this moment as a time when our country finally began to get serious about this problem and heard the voices of the thousands of American victims in our own backyard.

Mr. CORNYN

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 Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alaska (Mrs. Murkowski), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to spend a few minutes this morning talking about a young man who can be described in many ways and one who has earned many accolades: decorated Marine Corps veteran, award- winning journalist, Houston native, and seventh-generation Texan. But most importantly, this young man, Austin Tice, is better known as a friend, brother, and son to loving and caring parents. Almost 3 years ago, Austin decided to pause his law school studies to spend the summer in Syria as a freelance journalist. He was frustrated by the lack of reporting on Syria's civil war, a war that has claimed the lives of more than 300,000 people by some estimates--and that is just within the borders of Syria--and has displaced millions more who are living in refugee camps both in Syria and in surrounding countries. This huge refugee crisis affects many neighboring countries, such as Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon, and has tremendous potential to destabilize the entire region. As a strong believer in freedom of the press, Austin wanted to let his fellow countrymen know what was going on in that part of the world. As a former Eagle Scout and Marine Corps captain, Austin's typical can- do attitude led him to decide that he should go to Syria himself and report on the civil war, and that is exactly what he did. Well, as with most things he tried, Austin proved to be very successful. While he was reporting from Syria, his work was published in the Washington Post, McClatchy news, and other outlets. In August 2012, just days before he was planning to leave Syria, he was kidnapped, and no one has heard from him since. We still don't know for sure who his captors are. Sadly, we know very little. One thing we do know is that his parents, Marc and Debra Tice, and his entire family have worked tirelessly to locate him and to bring him home safely. This week marks the 1,000th day of Austin's captivity. I really can't begin to imagine the toll this ordeal has taken on Austin's family, but I have to say I so greatly admire the courage and conviction of his parents, who said earlier this week in a statement: We have desperately missed Austin for over 1,440,000 minutes--each new minute fuels our resolve to find him and bring him safely home. While we often mark the number of days someone has been missing, it is important to remember that to the family and friends of someone who has been kidnapped, even the minutes that pass are almost unbearable. Austin's family is not just counting the days he has been gone and all the milestones he has inevitably missed, they are counting the minutes too. Austin Tice has a family who is waiting for him, missing him, and laboring to find any piece of information that will lead to information about his whereabouts, while longing for his freedom. I join the Tice family in encouraging the Federal Government to do everything we can to possibly secure Austin's safe return home. I also say once again to his family: We haven't given up. We will continue to stand by you, and we will never give up until we find your son and bring him safely home. This week, we pass another milestone, this time of 1,000 days that Austin has been separated from his family. I join the Tice family in their hope that someday soon we will be able to add another milestone to this story, one that marks the day of his safe return to so many who love and miss him. Today, our thoughts and prayers are with the Tice family, and I stand ready and I daresay all of us stand ready to do whatever we can to encourage and facilitate the return of this Texan, veteran, brother, and son. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor to the majority leader.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in February, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center estimated that nearly 20,000 foreign fighters had joined ISIS or other related groups in Syria. Among those, some 3,000 were from Western countries. In other words, many of them either had American passports or those that are part of the visa waiver program and could travel, really, without anything other than that passport in the country. Over 150 were from the United States. Just last week, in describing the widespread nature of this growing threat, FBI Director James Comey said that the FBI is working on hundreds of investigations in the United States, hundreds of investigations. In fact, according to Comey, all 56 of the FBI's field divisions now have open inquiries regarding suspected cases of homegrown terrorism--again, not people coming from Syria or Afghanistan or someplace in the Middle East, these are often Americans who have become radicalized due to the use of social media or the Internet--much as 5 years ago we saw at Fort Hood, TX, a major in the U.S. Army, Nidal Hasan, who had been radicalized by a cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki. Major Hasan actually pulled out his weapon and killed 13 people, 12 uniformed military, 1 civilian, and shot roughly 30 more in a terrible terrorist attack at Fort Hood, TX. So today we are not just worried about a major attack on a significant cultural or economic hub, we also have to worry about ISIS- inspired terrorists all around the country, even as we witnessed in my home State of Texas just on May 3. When you begin to look at the story--that I will ask to be made part of the Record--written by the New York Times on May 11, 2015, it explains how this new threat of homegrown terrorism is inspired. I will quote a few pieces of it: Hours before he drove into a Texas parking lot last week and opened fire with an assault rifle outside a Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest, Elton Simpson, 30, logged onto Twitter. ``Follow @_AbuHu55ain,'' Mr. Simpson posted, promoting a Twitter account believed to belong to Junaid Hussain, a young computer expert from Birmingham, England, who moved to Syria two years ago to join the Islamic State and has become one of the extremist group's celebrity hackers. Well, there is a question--as the article goes on to say--whether or not Mr. Simpson and his colleague, who came, I believe, from Phoenix, AZ, and went on to Garland, TX, to carry out this attack--whether they were actually recruited ahead of time by ISIL or whether ISIL just claimed credit after the fact. But the article goes on to say: It was the first time that the terror group had tried to claim credit for an operation carried out in its name on American soil. . . . Yet Mr. Simpson appears to have been part of a network of Islamic State adherents in several countries, including the group's hub in Syria, who have encouraged attacks and highlighted the Texas event as a worthy target. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, following my remarks, this New York Times article from May 11, 2015, and a Wall Street Journal article from May 12, 2015, by Michael B. Mukasey. So what FBI Director Comey has expressed concern about recently is apparently very real. It is as real as the daily newspaper recounting the attack on May 3 in Garland, TX, of all places. Terrorists are sending a clear signal to those in the United States and other Western countries: If you can't fight us abroad, we are going to bring the fight to you in your own country. This heightened threat environment has led Pentagon officials to raise the security level at U.S. military bases. The last time the threat level was raised to this level was the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks. I still remember when the former admiral, Bobby Inman, who served for a long time in the Navy and then also in the intelligence community, was asked about 9/11. He said: It wasn't so much a failure of intelligence, as it was a failure of imagination. Nobody imagined that terrorists would hijack a plane and fly it into one of our Nation's highest skyscrapers, thus, in the process, killing approximately 3,000 people. So we need to remember not to have a failure of imagination when it comes to the tactics used by terrorists and those who inspire them abroad. Remarks like those from Director Comey and the Director of our National Counterterrorism Center are certainly troubling ones for us to hear, and it counsels caution. While the United States has been mostly successful in thwarting attacks on our homeland since 9/11, the threats are still very real. In fact, the terrorist threat has evolved and become more complex in recent years. In Texas, we rightly recognize that the role of government should be constrained to focus on core functions. At the Federal level, of course, this means things such as passing a budget. But surely it also means protecting our country and its security and the security of the American people. That brings me to some business that we are going to have to conduct here in the Congress sometime within the next couple of weeks before certain provisions of the U.S. PATRIOT Act expire on June 1. I believe that if we allow these provisions to expire, our homeland security will be at a much greater risk. So I think we need to talk a little bit about it and explain not only the threat but what our intelligence community and our national security officials are doing, working with Congress and the administration, to make sure Americans are safe, and the PATRIOT Act is part of it. I recognize there are many who perhaps haven't read the PATRIOT Act or whose memories have perhaps dimmed since those terrible events on 9/ 11 and who think we don't need the PATRIOT Act. But I would argue that the PATRIOT Act serves as a tool for intelligence and law enforcement officials to protect our Nation from those who are seeking to harm us. Three of those useful tools will expire at the end of the month, including section 215, which allows the National Security Agency to access certain types of data, including phone records. There has been a lot of misunderstanding and, frankly, some of it downright deceptive, about what this does, when, in fact, section 215 is a business records collection provision that happens to be applied to collecting phone records but not the content of phone records. This is one of the misleading statements made by some folks who think we ought to let this provision expire. Right now, under current law, which is set to expire June 1, our intelligence community can get basically three types of information about a phone record: the calling and receiving number, the time of the call, and the duration. That is it--no content, no names or addresses. You can't even get cell tower identification that would tell one where the call is coming from. Much has been said about this program, and, as I said, much of it misleading or downright false, but I want to focus now on the oversight that is built into this program because I think Americans understand we need to take steps in a dangerous world to keep the American people safe, but they also value their privacy, and justly so. We all do. So it is important to remind the American people and our colleagues as we take up this important provision of law about what we have already built into the law to protect the privacy of American citizens who are not engaged in any communication with foreign terrorists or being inspired by foreign terrorists to commit acts of terrorism here in the homeland. Let me talk about the barriers we have created in the law for an NSA--National Security Agency--analyst to overcome before seeing any real information from this data. First, for the NSA to have access to phone records at all--at all--a special court must approve an order requiring telephone companies to provide those call records to the Agency. That order has been in place since roughly 2006, where the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the specialized court created by Congress for this purpose, has issued an order requiring the telephone companies to turn over these call records--again, no content, no name and address, but merely the sending number, the receiving number, and the duration. That is the core information which is required. It is important to point out that these records include only the most basic limited information. They do not include the information I suggested earlier--the content, names and addresses, and the like. So the National Security Agency is not, as some have assumed wrongly, able to retrieve old phone conversations. They do not collect that sort of information, nor are they able to simply listen in on any American's phone conversations under this authority. That would be a violation of the protections Congress has put in place under the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Before an analyst at the NSA can even search for or query the database, they must go through even more controls, and these are important. To be granted the ability to search the database, the analyst must demonstrate to the FISA Court--the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court created by Congress for this purpose--that there is a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the phone number is associated with terrorism. This is similar--not the same but similar--in many respects to the protections offered in a criminal case under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution where law enforcement agencies would have to come in and establish probable cause that a crime has been committed before a search would be allowed. But since this is an investigation into foreign-induced terrorist activity, the standard Congress set was a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the phone number is associated with terrorism. If the court determines that standard has been met, they can grant access to the conversation but not under any other circumstance. If the NSA believes the phone number belongs to someone who intends to attack our country, the Agency must go back to court another time to be granted other abilities to surveil that individual. In addition to these checks and balances between the National Security Agency and the courts, all three branches of government have oversight over this program. And strong oversight of the intelligence community is absolutely essential to safeguarding our freedoms and our liberty. Because parts of this program are by and large classified, you are not going to hear public debates about it. Indeed, that puts defenders of the program at some disadvantage to those who attack it--sometimes in a misleading or deceptive sort of way--because it is very difficult to counter that with factual information when they are talking about a classified program, or parts of which are classified. It is important that our enemies don't know exactly what we are doing because then they can wire around it. We live, of course, in a world with many threats, as I said, many of them in our backyard. Many of them can be thwarted with good intelligence and law enforcement. And I make that distinction on purpose--intelligence and law enforcement. Law enforcement--as we learned with 9/11, we can't just treat terrorism as a criminal act. It is a criminal act, but if we are going to stop it, we need access to good intelligence to thwart it before that act actually occurs. It is not enough to say to the American people: Well, we will deploy all of the tools available to law enforcement to prosecute the person who murders innocent people. We need to keep the commitment to protect them from that innocent slaughter in the first place, and the only way we do that is by using legitimate tools of intelligence, such as this program I am discussing. Earlier this year, for example, the United States frustrated a potential attack by a man from Ohio. He was an ISIS sympathizer and had plans to bomb the building we are standing in today, the U.S. Capitol. That potential attack was thwarted by the use of good intelligence under the limitations and strictures and procedures I described a moment ago. Over the past 2 years, the FBI has told us they have stopped 50 American citizens from traveling overseas and joining the Islamic State and then coming back. So clearly the intelligence community has a vital role to play in safeguarding the American people in our homeland. Some in the intelligence community have said the bulk data collection I have described here briefly has led to a safer United States, and it is because of programs such as these that we are much better off than we were pre-9/11. That is very important because the last thing I would think we would want to do here in Congress is to return us to a pre-9/ 11 mentality when it comes to the threat of terrorism both abroad and here at home and to make it harder for our national security personnel to protect the American people. I believe the portion of the PATRIOT Act in question provides our intelligence community with the tools they need in order to effectively protect all Americans. I have been briefed on this program. We just had a briefing yesterday by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, by the FBI Director, by DOJ personnel, and by the leader of the National Security Agency. It was held downstairs in a secure facility because, as I said, much of it was classified. Much of it we can't talk about without alerting our adversaries to ways to circumvent it. But all responsible Members of Congress have taken advantage of the opportunity to learn about how this program works as part of our oversight responsibilities. I remain convinced that this program, like many others, has helped to keep us safe while using appropriate checks and balances to ensure that our liberties remain intact. And Congress, by maintaining strong oversight of these and other government programs, can have a win-win situation that both protects American lives and protects American liberties. Mr. President, I want to draw my colleagues' attention to an opinion piece that appeared today in the Wall Street Journal that was written by Michael B. Mukasey, who, of course, was a former U.S. district judge and more recently Attorney General of the United States from 2007 to 2009. General Mukasey writes in this article about the Second Circuit opinion that has prompted so much recent discussion about section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and the bulk metadata collection process I described a moment ago. I think he makes some very important points. First of all, he makes the important point that it is a good thing Congress has created a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court because the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, no matter how good they are as judges, simply doesn't have the experience to deal with parsing the law on intelligence matters and things such as this 215 provision I talked about a moment ago. He makes the important point that intelligence by its nature is forward-looking and our criminal justice system, which is what most courts have experience with, is backward-looking--in other words, something bad has already happened and the police and investigators and prosecutors are trying to bring somebody to justice for committing a criminal act. But our intelligence community is supposed to look forward and to help prevent those terrible accidents or incidents from occurring in the first place. The second point General Mukasey makes in this article is that the Second Circuit panel of judges assumes that many Members of Congress are simply unaware of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act I mentioned earlier--section 215, this metadata collection--which is a terrible and glaring mistake on the part of the Second Circuit panel. As I pointed out yesterday, just as we have done many times previously, Members of the Senate and the Congress generally have regular or at least periodic briefings on these intelligence programs as part of our oversight responsibilities. For the Second Circuit panel to suggest that Congress didn't know what it was talking about when it authorized these programs and when it wrote this provision of the law is simply erroneous. The third point General Mukasey makes is that the judges didn't even stop the program in the first place. So it makes one really wonder why they handed down their opinion about 3 weeks before the expiration of this provision, when Congress is going to have to take up this matter anyway, unless they wanted to have some impact on our deliberations here. What Attorney General Mukasey suggested, I think, is good advice. There needs to be an appeal to the Second Circuit Court en banc and then to the U.S. Supreme Court to get a final word. We don't need to settle on what he calls a ``Rube Goldberg'' procedure that would have data stored and searched by the telephone companies, he says, whose computers can be penetrated and whose employees have neither the security clearance nor the training of the NSA staff. Mr. President, I commend this article to my colleagues.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the chairman of the Finance Committee, who I know has labored long and hard to get this bill where it is today. I know how disappointed he is at the filibuster by our friends across the aisle on the President's No. 1 domestic priority. I have heard it said that the U.S. economy is just one or two steps away--a few policy choices away--from awakening that slumbering giant known as the U.S. economy and growing it for the benefit of all Americans. Unfortunately, the filibuster that occurred today is a backwards step. I know there are some people that say to Republicans: Why would you want to work with President Obama? The truth of the matter is that is what we are here for, if we agree on the principle. We are not here to agree with him just to agree with him. As a matter of fact, sometimes it is easier to go back home and say: Well, I disagreed with the President. But this is one area where the President of the United States is absolutely correct. We are here not to do what he wants us to do, but we are here to do what our constituents--what the American people--want us to do. What they want is the better jobs, the improved wages, the sort of robust economic growth that comes along with trade agreements. It has been said numerous times, but I will say it again: 95 percent of the world lies out beyond our borders; 80 percent of the purchasing power in the world lies beyond the borders of the United States. Why in the world would we not want to open markets to the things that we grow, that our ranchers raise, and that our manufacturers make? Why in the world would we not want to do it? You will have to ask our colleagues across the aisle, who today, with the exception of one Democrat, chose to filibuster this bill. I am intrigued to hear the numbers that were mentioned earlier: 14 protrade Democrats--14. I guess that means there are at least 32 antitrade Democrats. But I must say, on this side of the aisle, we are by and large a protrade party--for the very reasons that I mentioned earlier. We would like to work with anybody--including the President of the United States--to try to get our economy growing again, to open markets to the things that we make and grow and manufacture here in the United States, because it benefits the entire country, including hard-working families. The irony is that last week the Senate overwhelmingly voted on a bill that would guarantee Congress the time and opportunity to review a potential agreement between President Obama and Iran. That bill passed 98 to 1 and will prevent implementation by the President until the American people, through their elected representatives, are given the chance to scrutinize, study, and debate that particular agreement and vote on it up or down. So far, the so-called deal or framework has been incredibly vague, and I think it is important that we understand what is in it. You can imagine that if we voted 98 to 1 to require the President to lay before the American people this important negotiation with Iran, why it is so strange that our Democratic friends do not want us to participate in the same process by which to vote up or down on trade agreements. Trade promotion authority, historically, has had bipartisan support here in the Chamber. By the way, this is not just something that will be extended for the next 20 months of President Obama's administration. This will be extended 6 years into the Presidency of the next President of the United States. The Chairman mentioned that this legislation sailed through the Finance Committee by a wide margin of 20 to 6. And, of course, as I said--and I will say it again--it is supported by the administration, by President Obama's administration. It is very strange to see Democrats blocking a bill supported by the leader of their political party, the President of the United States. The excuses they gave here today are that all of a sudden they woke up and decided that the deal that Senator Wyden and Senator Hatch agreed to--which is to combine trade promotion authority with trade adjustment assistance--was not good enough and they wanted to renegotiate the deal. I think, from my perspective, there are really two types of folks in the camp across the aisle. There are those who, perhaps, would like to get to yes, and that means that you can have a negotiation and try to find a way to get to yes. But I can only gather from what was said earlier that there are probably 32 Senators on that side of the aisle who are antitrade. They are not interested in getting to yes. What they do is they throw up phony barriers, such as this attempt to renegotiate the package that was brought here to the floor. This is sort of typical obstructionism. We saw this happen in the antitrafficking legislation as well, when a piece of legislation passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and came to the floor. And then all of a sudden, someone woke up and said: Well, we did not read the bill, and now we object. This trade tool will give Congress the opportunity to examine any upcoming deal that the President is trying to cut and make sure--we make sure; we do not take the President's word for it. We make sure the American people get a fair shake. Many of the provisions in trade promotion authority are common sense and they are nonpartisan. For example, if passed, TPA would give Congress the authority to read the full text of the trade agreement. It is hard to argue that this is a bad thing. It is hard to get more straightforward than that, but we have no guarantee without this provision. Trade promotion authority would promote greater transparency and accountability in the negotiations process. Some, understandably, have complained that up to this point the Obama administration has relayed very little information about this unfolding trade agreement--known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership--or the affected industries--that it has relayed very little information about the negotiations taking place with countries along the Pacific Rim and in Europe. This bill prioritizes transparency and accountability front and center and will require the administration to brief Members of Congress regularly on the progress of the negotiations. It will actually allow Members of Congress to attend the negotiations. How more transparent can you get than that? That way Congress can work directly with those who are finalizing this agreement to ensure, again, that the American people are getting a good deal. So through the trade promotion authority, the bill that has been filibustered today, Congress would have been able to get to know important details regarding the actual implementation of the trade deal. I am disappointed our Democratic colleagues were not able to see how important this legislation is, not to us, not to the President but to the people they represent and to the economy and wages we need to see grow. Well, as we heard from Secretary Ash Carter today at lunch, this is important for national security reasons as well. It is important America thoroughly engage in Asia with our trading partners because there is a strange but simple phenomenon that occurs when two countries trade with each other. They are sure a lot less likely to go to war with each other if they are doing business and talking to each other. From a national security perspective, we want to make sure we make the rules with regard to trading in Asia and that we don't default and let China fill the void, which they will be happy if we don't take care of our business. Trade is important to my State, and as I said, it is important to the United States. In the 20th century all we needed back in Texas were farm-to-market roads to find customers for our goods. But in the 21st century, our customers are not just in the next town over, they are all around the world. As I said, 95 percent of our potential customers live outside of the United States. This legislation would help connect American farmers, ranchers, and small businesses to the markets around the world which would help our economy. As the country's largest exporter, we in Texas know the value of trade firsthand because we depend on it. I know a lot of people think, well, Texas is just about oil and gas. Well, that is not actually true. We have a very diversified economy. But part of what we have done, which has set us apart from the rest of the country in terms of economic growth and job creation, is trade. Last year, Texas reported $289 billion of exported goods, with some 41,000 businesses exporting goods from Texas to outside the country. Now, this type of trade has helped our economy grow and keep people employed, able to provide food for their families and other necessities of life. We have prospered, relatively speaking, during a time when much of the American economy has been relatively stagnant and trade has been an important part of that. Opening up our country to greater trade through the trade promotion authority would help American businesses send their goods to even more markets. The United States is the leading exporter of agricultural products. Last year alone, America's farmers and ranchers who could benefit tremendously from this legislation exported more than $152 billion in agricultural commodities and products to customers around the world. In Texas, for example, in the agriculture sector, we lead the Nation in exports of beef and cotton. By opening up more international opportunities for these products, our economy would grow and our Texas commodities, such as beef and cotton, would become staples in fast- growing markets like Asia. We also know, as I suggested earlier, that trade is not just about selling products, it is about the jobs that are necessary to make and grow the products we sell. According to a report released last month by the International Trade Administration, as of 2014, more than 1 million jobs in Texas alone are supported by exporting, and in the entire country that figure is 11 million. So with 11 million jobs dependent on exports, why in the world wouldn't we want to improve our ability to export more abroad to other markets around the world and to create more jobs in the process? Well, TPA is important because it would allow Congress to also have clear oversight over the pending trade agreements. I know there is a lot of skepticism about the kind of deal that is being cut behind closed doors. We would open those doors and bring it out into the open and allow all Americans to examine it. And we, as their representatives, will exam it as well and ask the hard questions, such as why is this in the best interest of the American farmer, rancher, and manufacturer. We know that TPP--the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is the big Asia trade agreement--alone makes up about 40 percent of the world's economy. I admit I am a little disappointed that the Democrats, with the exception of one Senator, would choose to block this important piece of legislation. With so much of the world's purchasing power located beyond our borders, one would think that on a bipartisan basis we would all support opening up new access to consumers and markets for America's farmers, ranchers, and manufactured goods, and that should be a top priority. Unfortunately, our colleagues across the aisle did not see our Nation's businesses and our economy as their main priority today. I hope that after today's failure of this particular legislation, we will engage in serious negotiations. I agree with the majority leader, that after November 4, the American people gave the U.S. Senate new management. They were dissatisfied with the management of last year and previous years because all they saw was dysfunction. Well, now the U.S. Senate is starting to function again. We are starting to produce important pieces of legislation, such as the first budget since 2009. This is a great opportunity for us on a bipartisan basis--on a nonpartisan basis--to do something really good. I hope, after making the mistake of blocking this legislation, that our colleagues--the 14 so-called progrowth Democrats out of the 46 across the aisle--will see fit to work with us to try and move this legislation forward. Order for Recess Subject to the Call of the Chair Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4 p.m., the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the chairman of the Finance Committee be recognized and then I be recognized following his remarks.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator briefly yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the bill manager, the ranking member of the Finance Committee is recognized to speak, that I be recognized to speak, and that following me, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee be recognized to speak.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).