John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. President. Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act Before my colleagues leave the floor, let me just offer my congratulations to the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Maryland, who have shepherded this important piece of legislation, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, across the Senate floor. I think we are all reminded every time we take up some consensus legislation and find all the traps and obstacles to passage that this is not an easy process. But it was not designed to be easy. It was designed to force consensus before a bill actually is passed into law. Thanks to the patience and the tenacity of our colleague from Tennessee and our colleague from Maryland, we have done that today, and I thank them very much for that. This legislation guarantees that Congress will have the opportunity and the time to scrutinize any agreement reached between the administration and the P5+1 nations with regard to Iran's nuclear program. This is to my mind the single greatest threat--not only to regional peace but to world peace--and that is the prospect of an Iranian nuclear program, a nuclear weapon. This bill prohibits the President from lifting sanctions that Congress has worked on for so long during this period of time. That is another important feature. But the most important part of this is the fact that Congress will have the right to vote for or against any change in the status quo when it comes to Iran. This bill will serve as a congressional check if there is a bad deal with Iran, and it will allow the American people through their elected representatives to consider carefully whether this potential agreement is a good one. I have been amazed to read in the newspaper and to see on TV that the President has negotiated a deal. When one asks to read the deal, you find out there is no deal. There is a so-called framework. But if a deal is reached between our negotiating team negotiating with Iran and the P5+1 countries, then Congress will have an opportunity--and through us the American people will have the opportunity--to read it and to understand it. We will have the opportunity then to debate it, and as I said, we will have the opportunity then to vote up or down on this deal once a deal is struck, if a deal is struck. But I wonder sometimes about the naivete of the administration when it comes to negotiating with the world's foremost State sponsor of international terror. This is a regime that has been killing Americans--mainly by proxy--since the early 1980s. Of course we should not and we cannot trust Iran to do the right thing. It makes it even more necessary for Congress to put all aspects of any deal under a microscope, as we will. While the President has been negotiating this vague and convoluted framework, the Iranian regime has done nothing to earn the trust of the American people or our allies. Just the opposite is true. Iran has only proven that it is untrustworthy and that it will stop at nothing to further its influence throughout the Middle East at the expense of the United States and our allies. You don't have to look any further than the New York Times to find a relevant example of Iran's doublespeak--speaking out of both sides of its mouth. Just last month in a New York Times op-ed, Iran's Foreign Minister argued that the United States and the P5+1 countries should reach a final agreement in order to promote the stability and security of the region. The Foreign Minister, Mohammad Zarif, wrote of the need for ``a regional dialogue'' to ``promote understanding . . . on a broad spectrum of issues,'' among them, ``ensuring freedom of navigation and the free flow of oil and other resources. . . . '' Well, this very article proves that to think we can negotiate with Iran in good faith is pure fiction. Just this past week, it was reported that U.S. Navy warships have had to accompany British and American commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, an international shipping lane that links the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf, after the Iranian navy seized a commercial vessel last week. Reports of another naval scuffle between the United States and Iran was reported yesterday just off the coast of Yemen. Is this how Iran has been working to ensure freedom of navigation in this region? Well, of course this is just one example of Iran's most recent deceptive tactics. This is the kind of regime that has been, as I said, on our State Department's list as the lead State for sponsorship of terrorism since 1984. Now the Obama administration seeks to cut a deal with the regime, a country that publicly admits wanting to destroy Israel and to build its empire and influence in places such as war-torn Syria and Iraq. The Obama administration's framework does nothing to hold Iran accountable for its proxy wars or for this type of regional adventurism. Even more concerning, this ambiguous understanding that the President released last month would abandon longstanding U.S. policy of preventing a nuclear-armed Iran and replace it with a feeble plan to contain it. I remember, as the Presiding Officer no doubt remembers, Prime Minister Netanyahu was just here a few weeks ago. He said that rather than prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, this framework would pave the path toward a nuclear Iran. The deal also forces the American people to trust the Iranian leadership with threshold nuclear capabilities, without allowing for adequate inspections of all of Iran's nuclear sites by international agencies, both civilian and military. This is unacceptable and dangerous. It also underscores why this legislation that we just passed is so important. This legislation is vitally important because it is a congressional backstop against an Iranian regime that is well known for its lies and international deception. Guaranteeing the time and the opportunity for Congress to scrutinize this misguided deal is essential. Providing the American people with the kind of transparency they deserve to understand what has been negotiated on their behalf is absolutely critical. America's elected representatives must be able to get every and any detail on this emerging deal. That is one reason why I think this legislation is so important. We need the time and space to review it. This bill provides for that. It gives us an opportunity to understand its terms and debate its implications. I am encouraged by the vote we just had, a near unanimous vote on this legislation. This is important because this President has shown a predisposition to try to go it alone, not only in foreign affairs and national security matters but on immigration, health care, and the like. It is past time for Congress to stand up and tell the President that he cannot act alone. Our Constitution contemplates three coequal branches of government, and Congress on behalf of the American people cannot be frozen out of the debate and the decisionmaking when it comes to something as important as an Iranian nuclear negotiation. I see another Senator ready to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Multilateral International Development, Multilateral Institutions, and International Economic, Energy, and Environmental Policy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 6, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Subcommittee Oversight of Multilateral and Bilateral International Development Programs and Policies.''

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 May 6, 2015, at 2 p.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Aging in Place: Can Advances in Technology Help Seniors Live Independently.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 6, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Impact of Federal Labor and Safety Laws on the U.S. Seafood Industry.''

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 May 6, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Ensuring an Informed Citizenry: Examining the Administration's Efforts to Improve Open Government.''

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 May 6, 2015, at 2:15 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 Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 6, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Fish and Wildlife Service: The President's FY2016 Budget Request for the Fish and Wildlife Service and Legislative Hearing on Endangered Species bills.''

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 May 6, 2015, at 10 a.m.

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 May 6, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

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 May 6, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act: The Role of Consumer Information in College Choice.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as were most Americans, I was very disturbed by the scenes from Baltimore that unfolded on our TV sets across America--a place not too far away from here--during the last couple of weeks. The whole idea of a young man dying in police custody, followed by the confrontations with police and the looting and burning of innocent minority-owned businesses in their own neighborhoods--these are all scenes we would expect perhaps in other countries, somewhere else around the world, but certainly not here at home. But that is what we saw and not just last week but also last summer in Ferguson, MO. So the question arises: What can we do? What can we do about it? What can we do as individual citizens? What can we do as parents? What can we do as neighbors? And then: What can we do as Members of the U.S. Congress? Perhaps more fundamentally, how can we as a nation unite to address injustice when it occurs? What steps can we take today to help the diverse fabric of this great Nation mend for future generations? As I indicated, I am somewhat skeptical that Washington, DC, and particularly the U.S. Congress, can wave a magic wand and solve these problems. A lot of this is going to have to be worked out at the local level by communities, by families, by houses of faith, and by civic organizations as well. Obviously, they are closest to the situation. But the Federal Government does, I believe, have a role to play that I will speak about in just a moment. I will just conclude in speaking about Baltimore by saying that our prayers, I know, are with those involved, and I know they are carefully considering how best to move forward and heal as well. But we are doing a great disservice to ourselves and to everyone else so clearly frustrated by the status quo if we isolate Baltimore or Ferguson as just individual instances of civil unrest and if we don't step back and see how they fit into the broader issue of our entire criminal justice system. I sometimes call myself a recovering judge. I was a district judge for 6 years, which is our main trial court in Texas, and I was on the Texas Supreme Court for 7 years after that. I also served as attorney general. I mention all of that just to say that I have had some exposure in my professional life and in my adult life with our criminal justice system. I have seen how it should work, and I have seen areas where we need to get to work to reform what is broken. I believe Congress can and must play a role--even a small role; I say small but in a significant way--by correcting injustice where we can and making it less likely that situations such as those we have seen in Ferguson or Baltimore are repeated. While we cannot singlehandedly fix broken families or broken communities or deal with situations at the local level around the country, we can contribute to efforts to remedy the basic instability of those communities and particularly we can start to make real progress in our criminal justice system to lessen the burden on those communities that are struggling with these issues. I know the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Senator Grassley, is committed to doing what he can, through the Committee on the Judiciary, to pursue criminal justice reform. I am happy to say that under the leadership of Senator Grassley, many efforts are already underway to consider how we can do a better job of rehabilitating offenders, increase public safety, save taxpayers some money, and help rebuild that all-important relationship between law enforcement and local communities. One example of how we are doing that is a piece of legislation I introduced in February with the junior Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse, called the CORRECTIONS Act, which stands for the Corrections Oversight, Recidivism Reduction, and Eliminating Costs for Taxpayers In Our National System Act. That is why we call it CORRECTIONS, because that is such a long title, but I think it says a lot about what we are trying to achieve. With about 30 percent of the Department of Justice budget spent on detaining Federal inmates and the costs of Federal prisons skyrocketing, this bill would actually take a number of constructive steps to reform our Federal prison system and would also make better use of taxpayers' money. For example, the CORRECTIONS Act would allow eligible offenders-- mainly low-risk or medium-risk offenders; certainly not high-risk offenders--to earn additional days of good time credit by participating in programs that will help equip them for life outside of prison. Texas is sometimes considered a tough-on-crime State, and that is true. After awhile, though, we realized we also need to be smart on crime because virtually all of the people incarcerated in our prisons will eventually someday be released. We need to begin to focus on what we can do to help them--those who want help and who will accept that help--and how we can do a better job of equipping them so they don't end up recommitting, reoffending, and ending up back in prison again. That is what this piece of legislation tries to do. So the CORRECTIONS Act allows offenders to earn additional days of earned time credit by participating in programs that will prepare them for life outside of prison. Low-risk offenders, for example, could earn up to 10 days of earned time credit for every month in which they are successfully completing programs such as drug rehab, education, work programs, faith-based training, and life skills courses. It is astonishing. I was in East Texas at one part of the Texas prison system where I got to observe some of the prisoners, some of the inmates there attending some of these types of courses. It is shocking how poorly equipped so many of these inmates are for life outside of prison and why it is so important that we try to help those who will accept the help and who want the help to prepare for life outside so they don't end up back inside. This legislation would allow these eligible prisoners to use this good time credit to spend the final portion of their sentences in home confinement or a halfway house. Half-way houses have worked over time as a transition from prison to life in communities, and they work very well. Also, technology can even allow home confinement for nonviolent, low-risk prisoners who have earned the right to a less confining circumstance on the backhand of their sentence. This may sound like a little thing, but it is important for several reasons. First of all, inmates need to learn valuable skills that can transfer to a lifetime of community engagement, instead of returning to a lifetime of crime. Second, it allows them to reconnect sooner with their families and the communities that need them most. Finally, this makes financial sense. It costs about $5,000 a year to keep a low-risk prisoner in home confinement, and it cost $30,000 a year to keep them in prison. I am not one of those who say, well, we just need to save money, so let's throw public safety to the wind. That is not what this does. We focus first on public safety as we must, but we also try to be smart about it--not just tough on crime. We try to be smart on crime. The great thing is that we actually have States such as my State that have experimented with this sort of approach with great success. Texas has actually, over recent years, closed three prison systems. Crime has not spiked, and, in fact, many inmates who have taken advantage of this program have become resocialized and integrated back into society. So we actually know. Rather than the Federal Government trying to mandate for the entire Nation and adhering to some new experiment, we actually have the laboratories of democracy--otherwise known as the States-- under our Federal system, trying things out to see if they will work, and we learn from that if we can. This is an area where we can learn, and we should. So I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley and our members of the Judiciary Committee to get the CORRECTIONS Act passed. The last time it was considered, last year, it passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis through the Judiciary Committee. As I said, fortunately, Chairman Grassley has made this a priority, and he has put together a bipartisan effort to look at some other consensus ideas that we might add to this prison reform bill, such as sentencing reform. Honestly, that is a little bit more controversial, because I am not one for just cutting sentences on the front-end indiscriminately or arbitrarily. We need to make sure we are smart about sentencing reform. I think this consensus-building effort that Chairman Grassley has undertaken will help us get in the right place. There are a number of targeted sentencing reforms I think we could all support to help address failures in our criminal justice system. So we should not let the divisive, controversial proposals stand in the way of making real bipartisan progress on the issue of criminal justice reform. But this is sort of a chronic problem we have had around here when we try to do comprehensive everything. When we try to do comprehensive everything, we make mistakes. We also make it almost impossible to do, because there are so many different moving parts. It is complicated, and many people remain skeptical about its chances of succeeding. But when you have something such as the CORRECTIONS Act, which brings to the Federal level the successful pilot programs that have been undertaken in the States, it just makes sense that this should be the place we should start. Indeed, that is why it has such broad bipartisan support. In order to make sure that the conversation about criminal justice reform extends to issues beyond prison reform and sentencing, there is another step the junior Senator from Michigan, the senior Senator from South Carolina, and I introduced just last week. This is another idea, because we realize the time that Congress has in our capacity, both on the floor and in committee, to deal with this complex topic in a thoughtful and deliberate way. So we need some help, and what we have introduced is something we call the National Criminal Justice Commission Act, which would create a commission to provide a top-down review of our entire criminal justice system. After completing a review of the system, this bipartisan commission would work for a unanimous recommendation on how to strengthen it. Congress could--much as it did with the 9/11 Commission--take bits and pieces of it. We wouldn't need to embrace all of it--or any of it, for that matter. But at least we would have the good and thoughtful work product of some experts who would be able to make recommendations to us in a number of areas. I was just at a meeting where somebody asked about the overcriminalization of a regulatory state, and that is a real problem. The fact that you can commit a crime without even intending to commit a crime if you happen to violate some regulation is a real problem. There are a number of areas I think we need to look at. As our attention was riveted by what happened in Baltimore and Ferguson, I think those incidents are symptoms of a much bigger challenge, and I think this commission would help us focus on building consensus and producing actionable results. Importantly, the continuing dialogue and commission process will help us strengthen the relationship between law enforcement and communities and help us to build on consensus items such as the CORRECTIONS Act. I think the CORRECTIONS Act is a good place to start, and the National Criminal Justice Act, the consensus-based sentencing reform--all of these measures will help us improve our criminal justice system. It will help bring down some of the tension we witnessed across the Nation, and help us, again, be smart when it comes to dealing with our criminal justice system. I hope my colleagues will join me in this important effort. I think this is the kind of big idea of a big challenge which will resonate with the people we represent in our States and across the country. When they see us coming together on a bipartisan basis and actually trying to solve problems, I think they feel that we are finally listening to them and doing what we should be doing here in the Senate. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am glad I had a chance to come to the floor and listen to the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on the Budget and the senior Senator from California talk about this budget, but I feel like it is two ships passing in the night when I see this remarkable accomplishment under the leadership of Chairman Enzi on the Committee on the Budget and the entire Committee on the Budget. This is a congressional budget that balances within 10 years. It doesn't raise taxes. It reprioritizes our Nation's defense. It protects our most vulnerable citizens. It improves economic growth, which is literally the rising tide that lifts all boats in a growing economy. That is something our economy has not been doing very well lately. And it stops the Federal Government's out-of-control Federal spending. This is really a remarkable accomplishment. As a matter of fact, this is the first joint 10-year balanced budget resolution since 2001. I think what drives our friends across the aisle crazy is the fact they haven't passed a budget since 2009. Now, with the new leadership here in the Senate, in the 114th Congress, we have done the basic work of governing, which is to propose--and this afternoon we will pass--a balanced budget. I know there are differences across the aisle. Clearly, there are reasons why people choose to be a Democratic Senator or a Republican Senator. But, to me, the differences are pretty stark. Our friends across the aisle don't think that the government should have to live within its means but that we should continue borrowing money we don't have and overspending and hand the bill to our kids and grandkids. I personally think that is a moral hazard. That is really unconscionable--to keep spending money and then to send the bill to our kids and grandkids and say: You pay. We had a good time. Good luck. Our friends across the aisle think the Federal Government is not big enough because they want to continue to feed the beast with more of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars so it can get bigger and intrude further into everyone's freedoms and choices that should be left to individuals and their families. It sounds to me as though the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, the Senator from Vermont, thinks the government ought to simply take more of the money Americans have earned and give it to somebody else who didn't earn it. I can only conclude that our friends across the aisle think an $18 trillion debt is not a problem. It is. When interest rates start creeping back up, as they eventually will, more and more of our tax dollars are going to be spent sending interest payments to the Chinese and other holders of our sovereign debt to service that debt. That is going to crowd out not only national security spending, it is going to crowd out the safety net spending we all agree is necessary for people who can't protect themselves. So there are real differences. This budget, I am proud to say--which we will pass this afternoon thanks to the heroic work of our Committee on the Budget--is a real accomplishment. I guess what would be a real embarrassment is if we didn't pass a budget. But we will pass a budget. People listening at home may say: Why are you patting yourselves on the back for passing a budget? We have a budget in our business. We have a budget at home. So why is it such a big deal for the new Congress to actually pass a budget? Well, I guess it shouldn't be a big deal. It should be something we do routinely because it is really the most basic demonstration of the ability to govern. But what makes it remarkable is the fact that it hasn't happened in a long time. So that is why I am so glad. We actually have seen under the new leadership in the 114th Congress some real progress. We have actually seen Democrats and Republicans working together to accomplish some important things. That is something which I think the American people appreciate and which all Members of the Senate have come to enjoy. The mood has changed. The ability of Senators to participate in the process and actually come up with solutions has gotten so much better in just the first 100 days of the 114th Congress, I think we are slowly starting to develop some momentum. We passed a bill that lets Medicare beneficiaries see the doctors they need. That is a good thing. We also passed an important piece of legislation that provides aid to victims of human trafficking. Through the end of this week, we will continue to work our way through another important piece of legislation, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which was unanimously voted out of committee a few weeks ago. This is very important not only to the region in the Middle East but also to us and the world. This bill will guarantee that Congress will have an opportunity to review and potentially block any final deal with Iran that President Obama reaches during the so-called P5+1 negotiations. After we conclude the consideration of that important piece of legislation, we are going to move on to consider something else I think will help grow the economy and actually end up bringing more revenue into the Federal Treasury, help us with some of our deficits and debt, and that is to pass trade promotion authority and then to take up the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. My State happens to export more than any other State in the Nation, and our economy reflects that because just our binational trade with Mexico creates about 6 million jobs. It is a good thing to have more markets in which to sell the things our farmers grow or sell the livestock our ranchers raise or the manufactured goods Americans make. It is a good thing. This bill would make sure the United States gets the best deal in pending trade agreements with countries from Asia, to South America, to Europe, and it would help make sure that Texas's products and, more generally, American products and industries find new markets, which will in turn raise wages for hard-working families. That is something we all support. With all these other signs of progress, I think that writing and passing a budget is one of the most fundamental responsibilities we have. While that should be pretty obvious--families across the country sit around the table each month and do the same thing--it is a fact that was lost on many of our Democratic colleagues when they controlled the Chamber. While listening to the Senator from California, I was reminded once again of what a cut in Washington, DC, is. It is not a cut in the amount of spending in a program at current levels, it is a reduction in the rate of increase. That is what they call a cut. What this budget does is it begins to cut the rate of increase of spending in a way that helps us control the deficits and take the first important step toward dealing with our long-term debt. When we vote on this budget today, it will be the first time both Chambers have actually voted for an agreed-upon spending bill since 2009. As I said earlier, it will be the first balanced 10-year budget since 2001, and that is despite 4 consecutive years of trillion-dollar deficits under President Obama--trillion-dollar deficits. Those deficits, as the chairman has appropriately pointed out, add up to debt, the deficit being the difference between what the government brings in and what it spends in a given year. Four years of consecutive trillion-dollar deficits has done grave damage to our national debt, with a downgrade in America's credit rating by Standard & Poor's. It would be one thing if the President and our friends across the aisle had a good record when it comes to their budgets and their proposals, but they do not. Just look at what the President has proposed. President Obama has missed statutory deadlines to propose a budget so often that it became more notable when he actually did fulfill that responsibility than when he did not. When the President's budget was voted on in 2011, it was unanimously rejected by Democrats and Republicans. It didn't receive a single vote. The same was true in 2012. If the President had proposed a responsible budget, I am certain Members of his own party would have at least voted for it. In 2011 and 2012, no Democrat voted for the President's budget. Last year, in the House of Representatives, all but two Members voted against the President's budget when given the chance. It went down by a resounding 413 to 2. That was the President's budget proposal. We saw history repeat itself in March as well. One by one, nearly every Member of this body came to the floor and gave a thumbs down to President Obama's budget proposal. As a matter of fact, it got one vote; it went down 98 to 1. Whether it is offering a completely irresponsible budget that is rejected by both parties or the failure to offer any budget at all, our friends across the aisle are living in a glass house. And when you live in a glass house, you really shouldn't throw stones. But the most important point is that the American people deserve better. We had an important election in November, and it changed the majority in the Senate. It established new management. In that last election cycle we made promises we intend to keep, and we were elected on our promise to be different and to govern responsibly. That promise includes passing a budget that protects taxpayers and sets the Nation on a path toward sound fiscal footing. Fortunately for the American people, we are keeping our campaign pledges, and this budget does reflect their confidence in the new leadership of the Congress. This budget leaves our country with a surplus after 10 years. It puts us on a path to begin to pay down our national debt, and it does not raise taxes. By balancing the budget without tax hikes, like we do in Texas with our budget, we can protect taxpayers and foster an economic environment that allows jobs and opportunity to blossom. But protecting our taxpayers is not our only priority. I believe our No. 1 priority in the Federal Government is national security. I believe Congress needs to make sure that is unmistakably clear, and we do so in this budget. The budget also provides the military with the necessary flexibility to react to changing threats and to make additional investments as necessary in a way that does not add to overspending. Not only does this send a message to our troops that they will have the support they need in order to do the job they volunteered to do but also to our families, our military families who serve as well in our all-volunteer military system. This prioritization of national security also sends a very important message to our Nation's adversaries. We know that weakness is a provocation to the bullies and the tyrants around the world. When people such as Vladimir Putin see the United States retreating, pulling back, not prioritizing our national security, and not maintaining our role in the world as a preeminent power, it is a provocation and it is an encouragement. We see that happening around the world as we see now a greater security threat environment than perhaps we have seen in many, many years. But this budget sends a message to our adversaries around the world that America will not shrink and will not retreat from our leadership role. The budget under consideration was passed just a few days ago in the House of Representatives because it serves the American people by providing for our national defense and balancing the budget within 10 years. And it doesn't raise taxes--something Congress hasn't done for almost 15 years. This afternoon, the Senate will keep its part of the bargain. We will follow through on our promise, and we will make clear to the American people that we are committed to getting our fiscal house in order with this important first step. I yield the floor.

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) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), 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 ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we are finally seeing the Senate do what we were elected to do, and that is the people's work. I am glad to see there have been some reports in the press saying the 114th Congress and the new majority are actually following through and keeping our promises by passing important legislation that helps make the American people's lives just a little bit better. One of the actions we have taken is the House and the Senate have now met in a conference committee to agree on a budget. This is, unfortunately, an unusual event in recent history. It was 2009 when the last budget was passed by the U.S. Congress. That is a little embarrassing. It is actually very embarrassing. It is a scandal, really. But now we are finally getting back on track. I am glad to report, as the Presiding Officer knows, that this is a budget that balances in roughly 9 years. I wish it were sooner, but that is what it is. There are no tax increases. It also meets our obligation to keep the country safe and the American people secure by plussing up some of the defense accounts, which I believe is important. All of our colleagues on our side of the aisle believe this should be our No. 1 priority. There are some things that only the Federal Government can do, and national security is at the very top of that list. So we will have a vote--perhaps as early as next Tuesday--on the budget conference report. United States-Japan Alliance and Trade Mr. President, yesterday, we had a joint meeting of Congress, and we heard from the leader of one of America's greatest allies, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan. I had a chance to meet the Prime Minister briefly before his comments, and I told him: Mr. Prime Minister, I actually graduated from high school in Japan. My dad was in the U.S. Air Force and was stationed at Tachikawa Air Force Base, and that is where I attended my senior year in high school. It was an honor for all of us to listen to the Prime Minister. As were many of my colleagues, I was very encouraged to hear about his unwavering support for the U.S.-Japan alliance. This is one of the most important alliances the United States has in the world. The Prime Minister spent a good amount of time talking about our shared values. He noted our mutual and unflinching commitment to democracy and freedom and our common goal of peace and prosperity. One of the issues I was particularly glad to hear the Prime Minister speak about was the shared values of freedom and democracy and why the Trans-Pacific Partnership is so important not just to the United States, not just to Japan, but to all, I believe, 12 different countries that are negotiating this important trade agreement. I couldn't agree more about the importance of trade. Texas is the No. 1 exporting State in the Nation, and that is one of the reasons we are doing relatively well compared to the rest of the country economically. I know the Presiding Officer comes from an oil-producing and gas- producing State that is booming as well. But one of the reasons my State is doing so well is because we figured out that the more people we can sell goods and services to that we grow or we raise or we make, the more jobs we have at home, the better our economy is, and the better our people are. The Trans-Pacific Partnership fits right into that formulation because the United States occupies roughly 5 percent of the planet and we represent about 20 percent of the purchasing power of the planet. So that should tell us that 80 percent of the purchasing power lies outside and beyond our shores, and why in the world wouldn't we want to trade with those other countries and sell goods and services to consumers in Japan and all around the world, including the region of Asia on which the Pacific partnership is particularly focused? The Prime Minister eloquently articulated that the Trans-Pacific Partnership promotes the spread of our values by reducing economic barriers. It has been observed by smarter people than I that countries that actually trade together are much less likely to go to war against each other. That just seems to be the way it works. And the more people we can improve our economic ties to around the world--it improves not only prosperity, it also improves the peace. Prime Minister Abe understands how important this agreement is not only for the 12 nations that make up the TPP but for the entire global economy. This is at least in part because the 12 Asia-Pacific countries involved in the partnership make up 40 percent of the world economy. Thankfully, the Prime Minister assured us that he will continue to work with the United States to ensure the success of these negotiations. In a short time--perhaps maybe next week or the week after--we will have an opportunity to take up trade promotion authority. This is congressionally conferred authority to the executive branch to engage in negotiations and sets the parameters for those negotiations--very clear congressional direction for the President's negotiators, including Ambassador Froman, in negotiating this Trans-Pacific Partnership. Once the negotiations are concluded, then it will have to lie in public for up to 60 days, I believe the timeframe is, so the American people can read it, to be completely transparent, and I think that is a very important part of the process. I would be remiss, as I suggested earlier, if I did not point out the important role of trade not only to the United States but also to my State of Texas. About $1.5 trillion of GDP is attributable to the State of Texas. If we were an independent nation--which we once were for 9 years; from independence to the time we were annexed to the United States in 1845--if we were still an independent nation, we would represent the 12th largest economy in the world. It would put us ahead of even robust economies such as those in Mexico and South Korea. It is primarily because of the role of exports. Energy is an incredibly important part of our economy, but it is not all of our economy. If we could do what the Presiding Officer and others have advocated, which is to accelerate the export of liquefied natural gas and perhaps reconsider the ban on exporting crude under some appropriate circumstances, I think we could do even better. According to a report released earlier this month by the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative, Texas was far and away the leader of goods exported in 2014, with $289 billion of goods exported--$289 billion. So, not to brag--well, Texans have been known to brag a little bit--but just to state the facts--let me put it that way. The State of California--the State with the second most goods exported by value--exported a sizable $174 billion worth. Now, that is a lot, $174 billion for California, but it is still $115 billion less than the No. 1 State of Texas. The same report revealed that Texas also boasts some 41,000 companies--many small- and medium-sized businesses-- that export goods globally. For years, this impressive amount of trade has helped our economy continue to grow, while providing jobs for Texans across the State. In fact, more than 1 million jobs in Texas are supported by global exports. So why wouldn't we want to do more and create more jobs and more prosperity and more opportunity? I agree with Prime Minister Abe that the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal is vitally important to the United States, particularly at a time, as we learned--I guess it was yesterday, maybe the day before--that the gross domestic product of the United States had grown by an anemic .2 percent in the last quarter, essentially saying our economy has flatlined. That is dangerous, and it is also painful for the families of people who are out of work or who are looking for work or those who have simply dropped out of the workforce. We need to do better by growing our economy and creating those jobs so people can find work and provide for their families. The Trans-Pacific Partnership would help Texas businesses. It would also help our farmers and ranchers, both big and small. Obviously, the agricultural exports and particularly the beef and poultry and pork exports to a country such as Japan would be very important. As the President said the other day, if we don't enter into this Trans-Pacific Partnership deal where we will be setting the rules, along with these 12 countries--if we don't do this, what will happen is that China will, in essence, be setting the rules for Asia. That is a circumstance we should not sit by and let happen. Increasing trade in the region will also provide a way forward for 21st-century industries that have made a home in Texas, including electronics and machinery. We are not as well known for electronics manufacturing and machinery as we are for the energy business or farming and ranching and agriculture. But, importantly, as Prime Minister Abe mentioned yesterday, the TPP goes far beyond just economic benefits; it also provides the United States an opportunity for greater influence in the region and in the process promotes not only prosperity, as I said earlier, but also stability and security. Just last week, the Dallas Morning News made this point well by saying that TPP is ``not just about exports and imports; it's also about enhancing America's role among Pacific nations and standing strong against an assertive China.'' President Obama made that point as well, and I happen to think in this case he is absolutely right. Texas and our entire country stands to gain a lot from this pending trade deal. I am happy to see the President is promoting this among some members of his own party, who are a little bit divided on this issue. I think it is fair to say that on this side of the aisle we are a little more unified on this issue. This is not, though, an objective we are going to be able to get done unless the President steps up and delivers votes from that side of the aisle from members of his own political party, and I hope he will roll up his sleeves and he will dive right in and engage and produce those votes. We can't produce those votes on that side of the aisle; only the President, the leader of his party, can do that. So I am happy to see that this Chamber, this U.S. Senate, has continued in a spirit of bipartisanship by passing trade promotion authority out of the Senate Finance Committee, and I hope we will take it up here as a body very soon. In conclusion, this legislation will open up American goods and services to American markets, which is good for our economy, good for jobs, and good for better wages for hard-working Americans, including Texas families. 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. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, under the previous order, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate the veto message to accompany S.J. Res. 8.

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