John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I know there are other Senators who wish to speak, and I will conclude on this point. It is with some sense of appreciation that I note the two lowest unemployment rate cities and regions in the country are, I believe, Bismarck, ND, and Midland-Odessa, the Permian Basin in Texas. Not coincidentally, those are the sites of some of the shale gas and the oil and gas production we are seeing that is thanks to modern drilling techniques and innovative practices that produce this American renaissance in energy, for which we should be enormously grateful. This is the way to get our economy back on track. This is the way to extract ourselves from dangerous parts of the world and unreliable sources of energy. And this is the way to get Americans back to work. I thank the Senator for his leadership, and I am happy to participate in this colloquy. Thank you.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership from the Senator from North Dakota. He has been a champion of this important program that enjoys the support of huge bipartisan majorities all across the country because they understand the importance of energy security. They understand the importance of getting this energy from a friendly country such as Canada. They understand the jobs that go along with it. They understand the need for hard-working American families to have affordable energy, whether it is gasoline, heating fuel or the like. So this makes sense on so many different levels, but I have to say that really the biggest obstacle is the Federal Government itself. Not approving this pipeline makes exactly zero sense. I know some people are put off a little bit--I would say to the Senator from North Dakota--by the idea of a new pipeline as if this is some novel creation. But just as an exercise in my own personal edification, I happened to Google--or maybe it was Bing or some other search engine-- ``oil and gas pipelines'' on the Internet, and I was astonished at the huge complex interplay of oil and gas pipelines all across the United States of America. Most Americans aren't even aware they exist because they safely operate, and they move this oil and gas around the country in a way that benefits our economy and creates jobs and helps us put people back to work which is the most important thing we can do. So we know for the last 5 years, since the great recession, we have had an economy characterized by stubbornly slow economic growth and persistently high unemployment. We have the smallest percentage of people actually participating in the workforce since World War II. We have seen a decline in median household incomes, so average hard- working families have seen their income go down, and we have seen this nagging sense of uncertainty about the future, not just because of the economy but because of the obstacles the Federal Government puts in its way. I would ask the Senator from North Dakota--I know that North Dakota has had some experience here--by not building this pipeline, what are the other ways that this oil is being transported, and what is the risk and benefit associated with that? People may think this is sort of an either/or--you either have the oil flow or not. But the truth is there are other alternatives, but they are not necessarily in the public interest or as safe as this pipeline might be.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) would have voted ``nay,'' and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the majority leader thinks this is a zero sum game. This could be a win-win. Debbie Smith, whom I have met and I daresay virtually every Member of this body knows, is a passionate advocate for this cause, hence the naming of this statute, this law, on her behalf. She recognized that these unprocessed rape kits are a national scandal and that people like her who had been victims of sexual assault needed help from the Federal Government to help provide funds to local law enforcement agencies to test and process these kits so as to identify the perpetrators and get them off the street. So what Debbie Smith has asked me and I daresay the majority leader and all of us to do is to take up this piece of the bill. We can do that, and I think we will have done a good thing today. If we can't take up the Justice for All Act because of other concerns people have-- this shouldn't be a zero sum game. We could pass the Debbie Smith Act today, and then we could take up the Justice for All Act when we return following the recess. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I asked the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee to remind me what the challenge is with the Justice for All Act. We have a Member on our side who is unfortunately not here today because of medical concerns who has concerns about that bill, so we cannot pass that bill by unanimous consent over that Senator's objection. What we can pass is the Debbie Smith Act, which is a piece of this. There is no objection to that, that I know of. Then we could get this rape kit issue addressed today, while we take up the concerns of the absent Senator, who is necessarily not here because of medical issues, when he returns and when the Senate returns. So I would reiterate my unanimous consent request that the Senate take up and pass by unanimous consent the House-passed Debbie Smith Act.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I may respond to the majority leader, the bill he is referring to is the Justice for All Act, which I support. But there has been some reason why that bill has not come to the floor and received floor time. I am worried that if we wait to pass that, we will delay the passage of the Debbie Smith Act, which is a component of that act, which we could take up, having passed the House, and we could take that up today and then deal with the Justice for All Act in due course. So I ask the majority leader if he would grant unanimous consent to take up and pass the House-passed reauthorization of the Debbie Smith Act, and I ask unanimous consent to that effect.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I could ask the majority leader through the Chair, there is the Justice for All Act which, as the leader points out, includes things other than the Debbie Smith Act, which has not cleared the Senate, which, if it did clear the Senate, would include the Debbie Smith Act. That would be a positive development. There is a separate bill--if the Justice for All Act is not cleared, there is a separate bill which would reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act which has passed the House. So we could take up just the Debbie Smith reauthorization that the House has passed and get that done today, which I would urge the majority leader to consider, if we can't clear the larger bill, the Justice For All Act. But, frankly, I would be happy with either one. But if we could just do the Debbie Smith Act today, I think we could call that great progress and a great win for justice and for some of these people who have been waiting too long for the law enforcement community to be able to identify the perpetrators and get these folks off the street.

Mr. CORNYN. Will the majority leader yield for one last question?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I may ask one more question of the majority leader, one final question.

Mr. CORNYN. I am on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the majority leader says there is important work for the Senate to do, and I can think of one urgent thing we could do today if the majority leader would consent. The House has passed the reauthorization of the Debbie Smith Act. To remind colleagues, this is money Congress appropriated to the Department of Justice for grants to local law enforcement agencies and forensic labs to test unprocessed rape kits. This is a national scandal, the number of unprocessed rape kits which have prevented law enforcement from identifying a serial perpetrator of sexual assault, many sometimes not just involving adults but also children. The House has passed the reauthorization of that bill. All it takes is for the majority leader and the Senate to consent to take up that bill today and pass it to get it to the President's desk. I think that, perhaps, is the most important and most urgent thing we could be doing right now. So I ask the majority leader if he would consent to taking up that bill and passing it in the Senate right now.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield for another question, I ask the distinguished Republican leader if he is aware--and I am confident he is--that the majority leader and other leaders of his party had a press conference last week, I believe it was, announcing their agenda from this point through the election in November, which involved issues such as the vote we had yesterday, the vote on the increase in the minimum wage, the vote on extending long-term unemployment, and the like. I believe there was a quote in the article--if the Senator will remember like I do--that basically said: We are not interested in legislating. We are just basically interested in posturing and politics to help distract the American people from the unpopularity of this President's policies and this party's policies. Does the Senator remember something to that effect?

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the majority leader said that there is urgent work the Senate needs to turn to, which is why we ought to amend the ordinary rules of the Senate which call for a 30-hour postcloture period. I ask the distinguished Republican leader if he is aware of any urgent work that the majority leader has planned for us to turn to that would be a reason to expedite this particular nomination?

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, if the Senator would yield for a question.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I start by making an obvious point that every Member of the Senate is dedicated to helping law enforcement officials get dangerous criminals off the street and deliver justice to victims of sexual assault, every one of us. As we mark National Crime Victims' Rights Week and National Sexual Assault Awareness Month, let's all keep that shared commitment in mind. Ten years ago I was proud to join with my colleagues and President Bush to enact the Justice for All Act, which has made it easier for America's law enforcement agencies to protect the innocent, to identify the guilty, and to bring peace of mind to the victims of violent crime. Justice for All dramatically increased the resources available to test DNA samples from crime scenes, to improve our DNA-testing capabilities and to reduce the rape kit backlog which had become a national scandal. The backlog was--and remains--a national scandal of the highest order, but we are beginning to make some progress. In the city of Houston, for example, a backlog that once reached 6,600 untested rape kits--one of the largest in the country--is now in the process of being completely eliminated thanks in part to the support provided from the Justice for All Act. Just to refresh the memories of my colleagues and for those who might be listening, these rape kits consist of forensic evidence collected at crime scenes that will help by testing the DNA to identify the perpetrator and, in the process, potentially exonerate people who have been falsely accused. The DNA tests are that good and that effective. What is extraordinary about DNA testing in the field of sexual assault is that sexual assault offenders rarely commit that crime once. They are typically serial offenders. In other words, they keep at it until they are caught. As we have learned from law enforcement officials, when there is not an adult victim available, these offenders are opportunistic and they will attack children, the most vulnerable among us. So this is enormously powerful evidence that is available to law enforcement to exonerate the falsely accused, to make sure the guilty are identified with scientific precision, and to take serial offenders off the street so they can't commit other acts of violence. Last year I joined with the senior Senator from Vermont, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to introduce bipartisan legislation that would reauthorize the Justice for All Act and continue these beginning steps of progress. If it were up to me, we would have passed that bill a long time ago. If it were up to me, I would prefer to reauthorize the entire Justice for All Act right now--today. It has been hugely successful, and it commands strong support across party lines and across the country. That said, it doesn't appear we are going to be able to do that today, but we do have an opportunity to take immediate action on two of the law's most critical components. Indeed, they could and should be reauthorized right now--today. I am referring, of course, to the Debbie Smith Act and the Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program, both of which have been invaluable tools in our efforts to eliminate the rape kit backlog and to improve public safety. Earlier this week our House colleagues passed a bill reauthorizing those provisions, and the Senate now has an opportunity to take up that more narrow House bill to reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act and the Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program, even if we can't do the Justice for All Act today. I am hoping that colleagues here in the Chamber, and anyone who might be listening to my voice, will join us in this effort to do what we can do today to reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act and the Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program and then, when it is possible for the Senate to act, to pass the Justice for All Act, the larger piece of legislation. As I said, I would prefer to reauthorize the entire Justice for All Act, and I know there are many of our colleagues who share that sentiment with me. But regardless of whatever minor disagreements Members may have, we should immediately--today--reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act and the Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program. Again refreshing the memories of some of my colleagues, and others who may not be familiar with it, the Debbie Smith Act was named after Debbie Smith who has dedicated her life to making sure Congress keeps focused on this rape kit backlog problem and scandal. She is one of the biggest cheerleaders for this law that now bears her name. This is also the name for the portion of the law that allocates funds to the Department of Justice to use for grant programs to forensic laboratories, police departments, and other law enforcement agencies around the country that may not have the money or the expertise or the wherewithal to be able to test these rape kit backlogs. It is not just my position that these two provisions the House has passed should be taken up and passed by the Senate and then catch up in due course with the entire Justice for All Act. It is also the position of the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, the National Center for Victims of Crime, and, of course, Debbie Smith herself, and I am confident many of my colleagues have heard from her. All of those folks support the provisions of the bigger bill. But if we can't do that today, they support the Senate's passing the provisions that have passed the House as soon as possible. We now have an opportunity today to do something to support countless victims of sexual assault during National Sexual Assault Awareness Month and National Crime Victims' Rights Week. All of these groups and individuals support the immediate reauthorization of the Debbie Smith Act. I am proud to stand here with the heroic people who have dedicated their lives to helping address this backlog scandal of untested rape kits, and even more proud to stand with those who are willing--and spending their time and treasure--to help folks who need to heal, who need justice, and who are asking for our support. In all my years of public service, Debbie Smith is among the most inspiring people I have ever had the privilege of meeting. I sincerely hope my colleagues will keep her in mind and others like her as we move forward with this legislation. Earlier this week, Debbie reminded me that the rape kit backlog is not just about numbers and DNA samples and scientific testing. It is about people, it is about justice, and it is about recovery. As she so eloquently put it: These aren't rape kits that need to be tested. These are lives that need to be given back to their owners. These are fragments of lives that have been torn apart. I hope my colleagues will remember those words as they contemplate how we should move forward on the House provisions that have been passed, as well as the larger Justice for All Act, both of which I support. By reauthorizing the Debbie Smith Act--and later, in due course, whenever we can do it, the larger Justice for All Act--Members of Congress can continue doing our part to help people like Debbie Smith heal wounds, repair lives, and make our country a safer place. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) would have voted ``nay.''