John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as you know, we have been back home in our States for the last couple of weeks or traveling, listening to our constituents. It was great to be back home and to spend some time talking to the people who I work for about the challenges facing our country and what we have been doing in the U.S. Senate to try to address those challenges. While it is always true that people wish there would be more consensus building and more solutions offered, I would say that, by and large, people feel we had a pretty productive 2015 and are hoping we can continue that sort of productivity here in the Senate in 2016, even though this is a Presidential election year. Yesterday was a good example of that productivity. We passed a trademark enforcement piece of legislation basically without--it was unanimous, to the best of my knowledge. All the Senators here in the Chamber voted for it without going through the official procedural hoops that are required in order to process legislation here in the Senate. Previously we passed legislation--recently the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act--to deal with the crisis involving opioid or prescription drug painkillers that are being abused around the country, and people are unfortunately falling into that trap, and then the cheap heroin that sometimes is used as a substitute if people can't find the opioid prescription drugs. So Congress actually has been doing the people's business here. Of course, we are in the type of profession where people will sometimes say: Well, we think you are doing a great job. And others will say: Well, we don't think you are doing quite so great a job. But that is the nature of the beast. Either way, it is always good to be back home. As I was talking to my constituents back home, I was glad to hear one thing. No matter what part of the State I was traveling in, there was appreciation for the decision we made to give the voters a voice on who makes the next lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Texans want to have a say in who replaces Justice Scalia on our Nation's highest Court, and I believe their voice should be heard. We are already engaged in the Presidential primaries process. Today is the Wisconsin primary. It will not be that long before we have a new President who will make that appointment. I simply believe it is important--particularly in something that could extend for the next 25 or 30 years and really affect the balance of power on the Supreme Court--that this be left to the voters. We all know we did not end up in this position overnight. In fact, there is a lot of history. I remember that back when I came to the Senate, I was frustrated by the fact that there was so much politics at play in the judicial confirmation process. Having served as a State court judge for 13 years, I had some pretty strong views about that. But the problem is, there has been a lot that has transpired in the interim. Everything from the Biden rule to the Reid statement in 2005 was really a threat saying that if President George W. Bush were to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court, it was within the authority of the U.S. Senate not to hold a vote on that appointment. That was in 2005. That was the Democratic leader. And then in 2007 when George W. Bush was still President, 18 months before he left office, Senator Schumer, the next Democratic leader, said there should be a presumption against confirmation. This is something that is nearly unprecedented. Then we know that in the interim there has been this development of filibusters or the requirement of 60 votes in order to get judges confirmed brought to us by our Democratic friends, as well as something we didn't think would ever happen but, in fact, did happen under Democratic leadership: the so- called nuclear option--in other words, breaking the Senate rules in order to confirm judges mainly to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals--what some call the second most powerful court in the Nation--in order to pack that court with judges who are more likely to affirm President Obama's constitutional overreach. So, as I said, much to my chagrin and I bet to a lot of people's chagrin, we have seen the playbook torn up by our Democratic colleagues and rewritten. The question is, Are we going to be operating under a different set of rules than they would if the roles were reversed? Frankly, my constituents back home think the rules ought to be the same no matter who happens to be in the majority and who happens to be in the White House. Even more significantly, the Supreme Court is the final authority for many of the most pressing issues that face our country. The Court often acts as a constitutional counterweight to the passions of both the legislative and executive branches. We have seen the Supreme Court operate time and time again as a check on the Obama administration's lawless actions. We saw this in the recess-appointment case. We have seen it in a number of different cases where the Court has said to the Obama administration: You have simply overextended your reach beyond legitimate boundaries. I am thankful for that important counterbalance in our government and the give-and-take that the Founding Fathers intended for us to have with three coequal branches of government. But, as I said, the next Supreme Court Justice could well change the ideological direction of the Court for a generation. Rightly or wrongly, the Supreme Court has the final word on issues as varied as the scope of the President's power, the ability of the States to make their own decisions about self-government, and questions of personal liberty and the like. The Court can and has made all the difference in the world, and one Justice can affect that for a long time. We recall Justice Scalia as somebody who believed that the words of the Constitution mattered greatly, and he served on the Court for 30 years. Justice Scalia was what was sometimes called an originalist. In other words, he believed the Court had an obligation to apply the Constitution and the law as written, not based on some substituted value judgment for what perhaps the unelected, lifetime-tenured judges would have preferred in terms of policy. That is not their role. They don't stand for election. It is our role as the policymakers in the political branches who do stand for election--and thus give the American people a chance to voice their pleasure or displeasure, as the case may be, with the direction that we perhaps take the country when it comes to policy. But that is not a role the Supreme Court should play. We need to approach filling this seat with great care. The administration and their liberal allies are now trying to basically throw everything but the kitchen sink at stopping the American people from getting a voice in this matter. In other words, they are trying to force Congress's hand or the Senate's hand to confirm the Presidential nominee at this time. They are spending millions of dollars on TV advertising. They have hired consultants, and they found some sympathetic allies in the media to criticize us. I don't begrudge anybody who has a different point of view than I do about this, but I simply cannot in good conscience vote to confirm another Obama nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court in the waning days of this President's term in office. I happen to believe we should not process this nomination. We should exercise the power we have under the Constitution to grant or withhold consent, and in this case to withhold consent. But here we are, several weeks after the President announced his nominee, and nothing has really changed. All the money and the consultants in the world are not going to change the fact that the American people are going to have their say. We don't know exactly how that will turn out, but that is because this is based not on the personality of the nominee but on the principle that the American people should have their voice heard. As I said, the President has the authority to nominate anybody he chooses, but that doesn't change our responsibility or our authority under that same Constitution. We remain committed to the idea that this vacancy should be filled by the next President. I want to be clear that the American people do deserve a voice here, and we will make sure they are heard. In the meantime, as I started out saying, there are a lot of things we can do working together. Just because we disagree about this one item doesn't mean we have to disagree about everything or that Congress needs to lapse into dysfunction. We currently have a bill pending before us involving the Federal Aviation Administration and the very important topic of safe and secure air travel. We can disagree about how to proceed with the President's nominee to the Supreme Court and still work together to pass other good consensus legislation. So I hope all of us, our colleagues across the aisle and on this side of the aisle, will continue to work together to do things I think would help the country a lot, things such as criminal justice reform--a bill that has been voted out of the Judiciary Committee, that enjoys broad bipartisan support, and that the President of the United States has said he supports. There is also other important legislation that I am very concerned about and interested in involving the intersection of mental illness with our criminal justice system and the fact that our jails have become the de facto warehouses for people with mental illness who are going untreated and obviously the homeless who are living on our streets, many of whom are suffering from mental illness. I hope we can continue to work together on these other consensus matters even though we disagree about this one very important matter. I am confident that we can and we will. Mr. President, 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. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte) would have voted ``yea'', the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Gardner) would have voted ``yea'', and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan) would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``HealthCare.gov: A Review of Operations and Enrollment.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2016, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reviewing the Administration's Nuclear Agenda.''

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 March 17, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2016, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Examining Agency use of Deference, Part II.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resource' Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2016, at 3 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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 March 17, 2016, at 9:45 a.m., in room SD-562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2016, at 2 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, on another matter, we all know that yesterday President Obama exercised his authority under the U.S. Constitution to suggest to the Senate a nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States. During the announcement, President Obama spent time talking about the serious task of selecting a Supreme Court nominee, particularly one to succeed a legal lion such as Justice Scalia, whom the President appropriately called one of the most influential jurists of our time. His point was that the Supreme Court of the United States--the highest Court in the land--is an institution of unparalleled importance. What happens at the Supreme Court affects the lives of every American. So lifetime appointments to this most powerful Court in the land should not be taken lightly. As the President put it, our Supreme Court Justices have been given the role as the ``final arbiters of American law'' for more than 200 years. Of course, today they consider and answer some of the most pressing and challenging controversies and questions of our time. I agree with what the President said to that point. We all know the Supreme Court is critical to our form of self- government and our democracy, and the role it serves is an essential one. When it plays a role our Founders did not intend, it really undermines respect for the rule of law and for the Court as an institution. So the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice should be handled thoroughly and thoughtfully. I understand the President is taking his authority seriously, but under the same Constitution--the same Constitution that gives the President the authority to nominate a person to fill this vacancy--that same Constitution has a separate responsibility for the U.S. Senate either to grant or to withhold consent to that nomination. With the passing of Justice Scalia, the Senate must exercise its constitutional authority as well. Regardless of how we come down on the controversy of the day with regard to when this vacancy should be filled, we all take this responsibility seriously, and because of that, I believe we should follow the examples set by the minority leader, Senator Reid; the senior Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer; and Vice President Biden when he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee--their admonitions made over the years when they were in the majority--and not move forward with the President's nominee at this time. I think it is only a matter of fundamental fairness to apply the same rules to the same situation no matter who is in the majority and who is in the minority. When they were in the majority, they argued that these vacancies should not be filled the last year of the President's term of office. Joe Biden did that in 1992 during the Presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush. Senator Reid made that same argument when George W. Bush was President of the United States. And in 2007, 18 months before George W. Bush left office, Senator Schumer, the heir apparent to the Democratic leader, said there should be a presumption against confirmation. So it is only fair to play by the same set of rules which they themselves advocated. Based on the conduct, based on the behavior of our Democratic colleagues when they were in the majority--well, first when they were in the minority, when they filibustered judges for the first time, and later when they were in the majority, before they saw the majority flip to Republicans, the Democratic leader packed the DC Circuit Court of Appeals by invoking the so-called nuclear option, breaking the Senate rules in a raw display of political power in order to pack a court that many people call the second most important court in the land. So this lifetime appointment to the Court is a critical check on the executive branch--a check this administration has proved over and over again we need desperately. As others and I pointed out long before the President announced this nominee, this nomination will change the ideological balance of the Supreme Court for a generation. Justice Scalia served for 30 years. Because of that, because of all of this, I believe the American people should have their voices heard in the selection of the next Supreme Court nominee. We have already undertaken the process here of the Democrats choosing their nominee for President, and Republicans are doing the same. There is simply too much at stake to leave this decision in the hands of a President who is headed out the door--a decision that will have dramatic consequences on the balance of the Court and the direction of the country for a generation to come. I believe we should listen to the voices of the American people and allow them to cast their vote and to raise their voice and determine who will make that selection. I know there have been some members of the press who have asked: Well, if not now, how about in a lameduck session of the Congress; that is, after the election and before the new President is confirmed? I think that is a terrible idea. If you believe in the principle that the American peoples' voice ought to be heard, it makes no sense to have an election and then to do it and not honor their selection. So I know some have expressed some concern about that. I, for one, believe we ought to be consistent. That consistent position and the consistent principle are that the American people deserve to be heard and their voice heeded on who makes that selection to something as important as filling this vacancy on the Supreme Court. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this afternoon the Senate will proceed to a vote on S. Res. 377, a resolution that would hold backpage.com in contempt of Congress for not complying with an investigation being conducted by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Unfortunately, concerns have been raised that the Web site has connections to sex trafficking. Backpage has refused to comply with the subpoena request from the subcommittee. We all know that sex trafficking is a heinous, evil practice, and we should not and we will not tolerate it. In 2012 I sponsored an amendment to the Violence Against Women Act that included a sense of Congress demanding that the owners of backpage.com remove the adult services section of their Web site. Last year this Chamber passed the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, and it was signed into law by President Obama in the spring. This law contains language offered by Senator Kirk from Illinois which gives law enforcement officials additional tools to prosecute individuals such as those behind backpage.com who knowingly facilitate the sale or advertisement of human trafficking victims online. Today's resolution is another opportunity for the Senate to stand up for the victims of human trafficking. As a reminder, when we debated the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, we talked about the profile of a typical victim of human trafficking--not that any of them are typical, but on average it is a girl between the ages of 12 and 14. This is a horrific business and sordid business, and I encourage every Member to support this resolution. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Portman from Ohio, who has been working tirelessly to highlight this issue and bring it to the Senate's full attention. I am grateful for his bipartisan efforts and strong leadership and look forward to voting yes on the resolution later today.

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. Madam 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 Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2016, at 2:30 p.m.

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 March 16, 2016, at 2 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Preventing America's Looming Fiscal Crisis: the Need for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.''

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 March 16, 2016, 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 Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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 March 16, 2016, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``DHS Management and Acquisition Reform.''

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 March 16, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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 March 16, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The 2016 Water Resources Development Act--Policies and Projects.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2016, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Impact of High Levels of Immigration on U.S. Workers.''

Mr. CORNYN

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