National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to begin by briefly commending the efforts of the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey, for his work and leadership in crafting legislation that the Senate considered yesterday that would protect families from the dangers of so-called sanctuary cities.
Sanctuary cities are, frankly, not particularly appropriately named because these are cities that have made a conscious decision to refuse to cooperate with the lawful orders of Federal authorities, especially when it comes to removal of criminal illegal aliens. The bottom line is that the failure to cooperate with Federal law and Federal officials is a danger to the very communities that many of our colleagues who blocked this legislation claim they want to protect.
In other words, these so-called sanctuary city policies--they refuse to cooperate with the removal of people who demonstrate their untrustworthiness by committing crime after crime after crime. They are a threat to the entire community, including legal immigrants and native-born Americans.
Senator Toomey's legislation would have cut Federal funding to these cities and counties that refused to follow the rule of law and would empower local authorities to crack down on those who commit crimes on our soil.
Unfortunately, once again, our Democratic colleagues filibustered this commonsense proposal, in addition to another bill that would have helped protect our communities. It is beginning to appear they are making a habit out of blocking bills that this country needs.
Let me give another example. Just last week, our Democratic colleagues were faced with a choice. They had made the point over and over again that the Zika virus--which is being carried by a mosquito native to our southern parts of the United States--was at our Nation's doorstep. They said that in order to combat this threat, we need additional funding for mosquito eradication, developing clinical trials for a vaccine, and advising and informing and educating the public on what to do to protect themselves. We know. We saw a picture on the Senate floor of the devastating impact this virus has on a woman who is pregnant and her child. Indeed, last week we had a picture of a child with microcephaly--the shrunken skull and brain--and a description of the tragic circumstances they will face in that child's short life.
We could avoid all of that if our Senate colleagues would just quit playing politics. They really had a choice: to protect pregnant women and their babies from the devastating impact of a birth defect caused by the Zika virus or to play partisan politics. What did they choose? Well, it is pretty obvious they chose to play partisan politics.
Every Senate Democrat voted for $1.1 billion in Zika funding. What did the joint conference committee in the House and Senate produce that they filibustered? Zika funding for $1.1 billion. In other words, they voted against the very amount of money that they had previously voted for.
They need to quit gambling with the health of Americans. That is what Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, said when he urged us to fund the President's request for Zika funding. But then they abruptly did an about-face when presented with a bill at the same funding level that they themselves had previously voted on. So who is gambling now? Who is gambling now? Who is going to answer to the mother of a child born with a devastating birth defect and explain to them why they thought that politics was more important than actually coming up with prevention and coming up with a vaccine that actually would stop the threat of these dangerous and devastating birth defects?
If the Democrats in the Senate want to gamble on the future health of the next generation, I want no part of it. Zika poses a real and immediate threat to our country, particularly in places like Texas where I come from. Ignoring the devastating impact of this virus is irresponsible and heartless.
We will soon provide another opportunity for our Democratic colleagues to move forward with a bipartisan, bicameral funding bill that includes the needed resources to fight Zika here at home at the funding level that the Democrats in the Senate have previously supported. Our public health officials need to continue the good work they are doing to study the virus, contain it, and keep it from spreading here in the United States, and they need the financial resources to do it. It is just beyond comprehension why our Senate colleagues would continue to filibuster this important funding.
Saying that the bill lacks sufficient funding to fight the virus is just plain ridiculous. That is what they have said. According to reports from just yesterday, administration officials estimate that they still have nearly half a billion dollars of unspent Ebola funds that could be put to use for combating Zika.
So I would invite our Democratic colleagues to reconsider their previous decision to block this funding and consider the wide-ranging implications of their ``no'' vote from last week. I urge them to reconsider so we can get these funds into the hands of those who protect us and our children. TRUST Act
On another matter, Mr. President, yesterday I spoke on FBI Director Comey's announcement regarding Secretary Clinton's use of her personal email server. He called her and the staff who enabled her to use this private server to transmit classified information ``extremely careless.'' He made clear that their actions were egregious in the sense that they put classified information at risk that our Nation's enemies would love to have and use against us. In summary, he said they should have known better, which is pretty self-evident, and he said they put our country at risk.
Even more devastating, his announcement on Tuesday proved that Secretary Clinton had been lying to the American people about her server from day one. From Director Comey's investigation, it is clear now that she did send and receive classified information, some at the very highest levels of classification. It is clear now that her server didn't provide adequate security, leaving sensitive information vulnerable to our Nation's adversaries. It is evident now that she didn't give the authorities full access to all of her work-related emails. Director Comey said the FBI uncovered several thousand more that she hadn't turned over.
In a word, this is unacceptable. For somebody with so much experience in government--as First Lady, as a U.S. Senator, and then as Secretary of State--to gamble with our Nation's most important secrets is completely irresponsible. Unfortunately, it tends to reinforce the narrative Secretary Clinton herself has been responsible for writing, and that narrative is, when it comes to her activities, anything goes. The rules may apply to you and me, but they certainly don't apply to her. Unfortunately, she feels like she is above the law, and, as I said, the rules that apply to others don't apply to her. This is simply unacceptable.
As Director Comey noted, people who engage in what Secretary Clinton did--the mishandling of classified information--are often at least held accountable through some security or administrative sanction, and that is if they don't get fired or put in prison for their misconduct.
We have to do what we can here to hold her and her staff accountable. It is part of the oath we take to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. No less than if we were an FBI agent or a Federal judge, as Senators we have to take that oath, and it is the right thing to do.
It is very important that we send a firm message that this sort of behavior is unacceptable, and hopefully we will deter others from taking the same risks to our Nation's national security and the lives of the men and women who serve in our intelligence services if we send a message that this is not acceptable and there will be a price to be paid.
In light of the FBI Director's announcement, I have introduced legislation with the junior Senator from Colorado, Mr. Gardner, to do just that. This legislation is called the TRUST Act. It would revoke the security clearance of anyone found to have demonstrated extreme carelessness in the handling of classified information and would keep them from receiving a clearance in the future so they couldn't do this again. It would also clarify existing law so that everyone understands that extreme carelessness, which the FBI found in the case of Secretary Clinton and her staff, basically becomes the legal standard whether or not you think it constituted gross negligence.
There are many people whose legal opinion I respect, such as former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who said that extreme carelessness and gross negligence are basically the same thing.
I heard Mayor Giuliani--former distinguished U.S. prosecutor, former third person in line at the Justice department--say there is plenty of evidence with which to prosecute somebody who has done the things and said the things Secretary Clinton and her staff have. But we understand that Director Comey has taken that off the table, and now Attorney General Lynch has said we are going to close the file. But the truth is, Secretary Clinton and her staff have proven that they are either unable or disinterested in keeping safe highly sensitive classified information, and they have gone so far as to cover up this scandal at every step along the way. I think that should mean at minimum that they forfeit the privilege of having a security clearance so at least they cannot do this again.
Yesterday, Director Comey made clear that Secretary Clinton and her staff should have known better. That seems self-evident with somebody with long experience in the Federal Government--from First Lady, to U.S. Senator, to Secretary of State. With the highest level of security clearance in the Federal Government, she should have known better.
She was reckless and careless in the way she handled this classified information. Add to that the frightening implications of this sensitive information getting into the hands of our adversaries, such as the Russians or Chinese intelligence agencies, and any reasonable person would come to one conclusion: They have to be held accountable and there has to be some penalty for putting our Nation's security at risk.
I will continue to call on the Department of Justice to be open and transparent. Director Comey said that he thought that the circumstances of this case, while they didn't rise to the level sufficient for indictment, that transparency was very important. That is why he made the really unprecedented announcement that he did, which frankly far exceeded his authority as the investigative agency, where he said no reasonable prosecutor would have sought an indictment in this case.
But I hope the Justice Department responds to the letter which I sent on today's date wherein I asked him to release any unclassified information as it relates to this scandal. The American taxpayers deserve to see all of the investigation--which cost the American taxpayers millions of dollars--especially in light of the fact that there will be no criminal prosecution, according to Director Comey's recommendation and according to the decision of the Justice Department to close the case yesterday.
I urge Secretary Clinton to ask the Justice Department to release the FBI reports and any transcript of her 3\1/2\-hour long interview as well because I think the American people deserve it. I suspect what we would find is that Secretary Clinton's lawyers said: No matter what you have done before, don't lie to the FBI in that 3\1/2\-hour interview, because that lawyer and Secretary Clinton would know that no matter what you have done or haven't done before, if you actually lie to an FBI agent, that is an indictable and prosecutable crime in and of itself. So I have reasonable confidence that she did finally come clean and tell the truth to the FBI in that interview. Now, the only right thing to do, in the interests of the sort of transparency Director Comey talked about--since there can be no prosecution and no indictment, the only right thing to do in the interests of transparency and public accountability is for that transcript of the 3\1/2\-hour- long interview to be released to the American people so they can judge for themselves. I believe the American people deserve at least that.
Senate, Washington, DC, July 7, 2016. Hon. Loretta Lynch, Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Dear Attorney General Lynch: On July 5, 2016, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced in a lengthy press conference that the FBI was officially recommending that ``no charges are appropriate'' in the investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State. The Director made this recommendation even though the FBI found that ``there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,'' including evidence that ``Secretary Clinton or her colleagues . . . were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.'' In doing so, the Director specifically pointed to seven e-mail chains concerning Top Secret information, some of which apparently ``bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.'' These conclusions, among others, directly contradict many of the public statements that former-Secretary Clinton and her supporters have made in defense of her unprecedented conduct. Nevertheless, yesterday you accepted his recommendation and, in a terse, two-sentence statement, announced that ``the thorough, year-long investigation'' was now closed and that ``no charges [would] be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.''
The Director's lengthy public statement was ``unusual,'' as he noted, but he asserted that ``the American people deserve . . . details in a case of intense public interest,'' and that ``given the importance of the matter, . . . unusual transparency is in order.'' His public statement, he said, was an effort to ``assure the American people . . . that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.'' In contrast, your public announcement contained no similar disclosures or otherwise provided the American people with much needed transparency and information about that investigation.
For more than a year, I also have noted that this case was incredibly important and highly unusual and that the American people deserved a fair and impartial investigation. That's why I called for you to appoint a Special Counsel in this matter. The need for a Special Counsel, the appointment of which would give the American people greater transparency and assurance of independence, was underscored after you decided to meet privately with Secretary Clinton's husband just days before the Director's public announcement and the conclusion of that investigation. I will continue to press for this appointment because I believe it is the best and most appropriate way for the American people to have faith in the administration of justice in this case.
In the meantime, and because the Director and I both agree about the importance of this matter and the need for unusual transparency, I call on the Department of Justice to immediately release the FBI's report and any transcript of the FBI's three-and-a-half hour interview of former-Secretary Clinton on July 2. As you know, such interview reports often become public when a criminal investigation results in a criminal prosecution. And the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require the Department of Justice to provide an interview report directly to a criminal defendant. Of course, here you have declined to appoint a Special Counsel and the FBI has decided that ``no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,'' so the American people will not enjoy the same transparency that they have come to expect from their own government. But as the Director said, ``only facts matter,'' and the American people deserve the facts underlying former- Secretary Clinton's FBI interview to evaluate the Department of Justice's conclusions and the public statements that former-Secretary Clinton and her supporters have made regarding her use of a personal email system and her egregious handling of classified information. Sincerely, John Cornyn, United States Senator.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. It is the prerogative of the majority to set those votes. Frankly, in light of the process we do have, as the Senator knows, this is not the appropriate process.
But I do agree with her on one thing: that the Senate ought to do its job. One of the things we could do, which has received broad bipartisan, bicameral support, is to fund the efforts to combat the Zika virus, which creates the devastating birth defects we talked about a moment ago.
If the Senator is really concerned about doing our job and taking care of our Nation's business, then she ought to join me in voting for the $1.1 billion in funding for the Zika virus, which is a national health care emergency, and certainly the pictures I have had here previously demonstrate the consequences of a failure to deal with this Zika virus. Unfortunately, this baby has suffered a devastating birth defect known as microcephaly--literally a shrunken skull and brain--and is condemned to an uncertain future in life, not to mention the consequences on the family.
I would implore the Senator from Massachusetts, let's get to work doing this, which I believe the Senator has already voted for the $1.1 billion in funding. Yet when we brought this up, all we got were objections and stonewalling from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Frankly, I don't understand it. It is a terrible mistake, and I don't want one baby in America to suffer this sort of birth defect because we dithered and did not do our duty when it came to providing adequate funding to combat the Zika virus.
This is something we should take care of before we break on July 15. We can fight about judges any other time, but this is a true public health emergency. And how Senators can come down here and try to hijack the floor to talk about something else when we are ignoring the very work before us in dealing with this biotechnology agriculture issue or dealing with something even more pressing, such as avoiding birth defects and these sorts of devastating consequences as a result of this Zika virus, I do not understand.
We ought to be taking care of that, and we also ought to be taking care of this. This is urgent. How people can think we need to deal with these lists of judges and sort of hijack the agenda and distract us from our work on preventing these sort of birth defects is, frankly, a misplacement of priorities.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source