John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would just say that for those who are interested in reading the response--interestingly, I didn't get a response from the Attorney General, to whom I addressed the letter; I got a response from the Assistant Attorney General. I read it over and over and over again, and it doesn't agree to the appointment of a special counsel and it doesn't refuse to appoint a special counsel. In other words, it is a non-answer to the question. I don't know what reason the Attorney General or the Department of Justice might have for leaving this open-ended and not actually declining at this time to appoint a special counsel, if that is their conclusion, but they simply didn't answer the question. I would just say in conclusion that my constituents in Texas sent me here to serve as a check on the executive branch, and I am going to continue to press the Attorney General and the rest of the administration for answers because the American people deserve the sort of accountability and, indeed, in the end, justice that need to be delivered in this case--not a sweep under the rug, not a playing out the clock until the end of the administration, but answers that can only come from an independent investigation conducted by a special counsel. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

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 October 6, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 6, 2015, at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen 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 October 6, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD- 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled `` Stealing the American Dream of Business Ownership: The NLRB's Joint Employer Decision.''

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 October 6, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The U.S. Role and Strategy in the Middle East: Yemen and the Countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council.''

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 October 6, 2015, at 2:30 p.m. in room SR-418 of the Russell 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 October 6, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

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. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I continue to read in the newspaper and the press--particularly that which covers our activities in Congress-- talk about the shutdown that was averted because we were able to pass a continuing resolution before the midnight end of the fiscal year on Wednesday night. I would like to reflect just a few minutes on what the cause of this drama is and where the responsibility actually lies for all of this shutdown drama, which would be completely unnecessary if the Senate and the Congress were permitted to basically do our job. For example, just this afternoon our Democratic friends decided to filibuster legislation that would help our veterans and our men and women in uniform because it would fund the full range of services to veterans and the construction of military facilities. If you think about that for a moment, it becomes even more outrageous because the idea that in order to force this side of the aisle to the table, in order to spend more money and raise taxes, that you would hold our veterans and our military hostage is really remarkable, certainly nothing to be proud of, and something that needs to be called out and identified for what it is. The only reason we have had to go through this process on a continuing resolution--and, by the way, for those who are not familiar with the continuing resolution, what that means is we are continuing for a period of time now--until December 11--the current spending policies of the Federal Government. That means we are side-stepping the Appropriations Committee, where outdated or obsolete programs are discarded or if there are multiple government programs that could be consolidated that could be made more effective or efficient, or if, heaven forbid, we could actually save some money and apply it to priorities or maybe help reduce our deficit--that is where that should be happening, but the obstruction of our friends across the aisle who are dead set on forcing us to the negotiating table so they can force the Federal Government to spend more money is outrageous. We have had two previous votes on the Defense appropriations bill, which is even more immediately directed to help support our families and the men and women in uniform, many of whom are serving in harm's way. It is amazing to me how many people will come to the Senate floor or in the other body, the House of Representatives, and talk about their devotion and dedication to our military and our veterans--and they should. Our military and our veterans deserve our devotion and appreciation and every honor we can bestow on them. But the idea that you would on one hand talk like that and then come to the floor and block legislation that funds their paycheck or pays for their benefits if they are a veteran and keeps the commitment we have made to them--it really is outrageous and is just another reason why the American people--everybody outside of the beltway--hold Congress and Washington in such low regard. We are, after all, a self-governing people, and when people hold their government in low regard and lose confidence in their government, basically they lose confidence in themselves and in our country and in our ability to control our destiny or at least try to point us in a better direction. Earlier on, I believe it was the senior Senator from New York who gave an interview to the New York Times. He talked about the fact that the Democrats were going to have a ``filibuster summer,'' and now that has sort of slopped over into a filibuster fall, apparently. Why? For what reason? What is the good reason? Well, it is not for a good reason, but it is for this reason: so they can force Republicans, the majority, to the negotiating table to spend more money. Then there is the White House. There is no leadership out of the White House on fiscal matters whatsoever. This morning the White House threatened to veto this very bill, assuming it would pass the Congress. Again, why? Well, because it complies with the current law and budgetary restrictions under the Budget Control Act. You might ask, well, why are they offended by that? Why is that a problem? Well, that is a good question, actually, because the President himself signed the Budget Control Act into law, and the very caps on spending that have kept discretionary spending at 2007 levels are caps he signed into law. The idea that you would hold our troops and veterans hostage is incredible. Why? Because the President and the minority, the Democrats, refuse to adhere to budget spending caps the President signed into law. You know, we hear a lot of discussion about these caps and sequestration. These are the automatic spending caps on discretionary spending. They were actually proposed by the President and his team at the White House in the first place. So it would require a certain degree of cognitive dissonance or maybe willing suspension of disbelief to read over the White House's veto threat on this particular bill and to take it seriously. We are going to continue to press our Democratic colleagues to return this body to what we like to call regular order around here--in other words, doing our job, what we were elected to do. This whole idea of holding our troops and veterans hostage in order to force more government spending is beyond outrageous. With everything happening in the world, I don't doubt it is hard for this message to penetrate, but the reason we continue to operate on continuing resolutions and temporary patches, such as the one that was just passed that goes to December 11, is because of the obstruction on the other side of the aisle, these filibusters. We have a lot of work cut out for us by that December 11 deadline. Before that deadline, we have to deal with an expiring highway bill. We passed a multiyear highway bill here in the Senate and sent it to the House. My hope is that they will use this time up until October 29 to pass a highway bill and that we can get to a conference and work out the differences and settle that one important piece of business. I come from a big State. We need those resources in order to maintain and build our highway system, for public safety, for the environment, and for the economy. So I hope we can get that done. We are going to have another big drama here as a result of the Democrats filibustering these appropriations bills called an Omnibus appropriations bill. In other words, what is set up to happen as a result of the obstruction on the other side of the aisle by blocking all of these appropriations bills is we are going to have to consider all of the funding for the Federal Government for perhaps the next year. We are going to have to vote on that one big bill--probably $1 trillion or more--in December. That is a horrible way to do business. First of all, it is not transparent. Our constituents cannot hope to read that legislation and understand all of the ramifications of it and what it might mean. It also, frankly, is susceptible to being larded with things that really aren't necessary, that would not pass under other circumstances but are put on a must-pass piece of legislation. So you are going to hear more drumbeats--I will close with this-- about shutdowns and cliffs and the irresponsibility of Congress in not meeting our basic obligations. There is one reason for that under the present circumstances; it is because our Democratic friends have chosen to filibuster and to stop the Senate from doing its business the way we should be doing our business in an orderly, transparent, responsible, and accountable sort of way. The way we do that is by taking up individual appropriations bills and passing them. If we did it that way, there would be no government shutdown drama if one or two appropriations bills did not get passed for some reason, if there was some delay. So this is really the source of all of this shutdown drama--the obstruction of our Democratic colleagues, preventing us from doing our basic business of governing and making sure we are doing what we promised to do when each of us stood for election in front of our voters. I see the junior Senator from Montana is here. I know one of the things that motivated many of our new Senators is the desire to come here and put our fiscal house in order. We are not even talking about doing some of the things we should do, some of the things we need to do to reduce the deficit--the difference between what we spend and what comes in--much less the debt, which is in the $18 trillion range, which is unbelievable. So these young men and women who are serving as pages--we are leaving behind for them a financial burden which is simply immoral. It is just not right. The promises that were made back when Social Security and Medicare were passed--that they would be there for you in your later years--I have not met a young person today who thinks Social Security or Medicare is going to be there for them because, frankly, they are going to run out of money on the current path they are on. So we have a lot to do. Believe me, the country is upset. People are angry. They are scared. They are worried about their families and about their future. They are worried about their security. When they look at the TV set or read the newspaper and see how a willful minority can simply shut down our ability to do our job and conduct the Nation's business, their anger and their frustration and their fear are justified. We can do better. I hope and pray we will. I yield the floor.

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. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senate has now passed a continuing resolution to keep the lights on, to keep the government employees paid, to pay our military and make sure our veterans get the benefits they are entitled to from now until December 11. I think it is important to reflect on why it is we had to do this in this way, with all of the attendant drama and the suggestion that we were going to somehow shut down the government, which was never a likelihood. The main reason we find ourselves in this posture is because for the first time since 2009, the Senate has actually passed a budget. This new majority that was elected last November saw that one of the most important things we could do in terms of the basic fundamentals of good governance was to pass a budget--something that hadn't happened since 2009. There are many benefits, of course, of passing a budget, but one of the benefits was to allow the Appropriations Committee to begin to go to work and take up and pass 12 different appropriations bills that would keep the whole of the Federal Government funded. As the Presiding Officer knows, there is a lot of policy written in those Appropriations Committees. You can make a decision not to fund something because it is not working or maybe it is obsolete or outdated or perhaps to fund something else; say perhaps we need to reform the way this particular service is delivered and consolidate it in a way that it is cost-effective and more efficient. So it is important to pass a budget and to pass appropriations bills. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues are trying to use the appropriations process to hold it hostage in order to force us to increase government spending. The way they try to do that is to filibuster the appropriations bills and to say: We are not even going to take up a defense appropriations bill, the one that actually pays our troops and takes care of their families. Well, they are going to have a chance to vote on a veterans appropriations bill very soon, and we will see whether they keep up this tactic of holding hostage our appropriations process, creating all this unnecessary drama associated with whether there is going to be a shutdown here or a shutdown there. It is very important that we get back to work and we do the basic work of governance--passing a budget, passing appropriations bills. I know the Presiding Officer agrees with that. I think lost in all of this debate over government shutdowns and over appropriations bills has been the shocking videos we saw of Planned Parenthood, these Planned Parenthood videos that showed Planned Parenthood executives speaking callously about the unborn. These are late-term abortions. These are unborn babies who could well be viable outside of the womb, because after 20 weeks, give or take 2 weeks, it is amazing what neonatologists and what medical science can do. I know we have all seen babies as small as 1 pound or less who actually grow into thriving adults later on, and it is amazing what can be done even with these young babies as young as 20 weeks or more. But of course these videos I think have served one important role; that is, to be a wake-up call, to try to wake up the moral conscience of our Nation. Somehow we have trivialized this whole process and talked about choice and talked about the convenience of adults, when in fact there is another competing interest involved; that is, the potential life of a human being that is being overlooked. At different times in our Nation's history I think we have seen that somehow we became so desensitized, we became so self-focused on ourselves that we forgot the fact that this speaks about our humanity and who we are as a people. So I think these sorts of wake-up calls that these videos have provided have been useful if we make the most of them. I know that as we have talked about the continuing resolution and the so-called shutdown scenario--which is not going to happen--there has been concern that this might be the only way that we stop this horrific practice of late-term abortions and harvesting of fetal body parts for sale that were depicted in these videos. But I am thankful there are a number of pro-life groups in Texas and nationally who understand that we need to make sure this is a long-term agenda and not just a one-vote situation. As I mentioned yesterday, earlier this week two groups involved in the pro-life mission in my home State announced their support for efforts in Congress to hold Planned Parenthood accountable and to work toward long-term, meaningful change on the pro-life agenda. One of those groups, the Texas Alliance for Life, released a statement that affirmed actions taken last week--a vote to defund Planned Parenthood and to redirect funding to other providers of women's health services that are not involved in the abortion industry. If we are truly concerned about women's access to health care--and we all are-- then why can't we take the money that goes to pay the No. 1 abortion provider in America and redirect it to community health centers that actually do provide women's health services? The statement of the Texas Alliance for Life went on to say that the group was ``not asking for a government shutdown over the issue'' and that ``better options exist for achieving success.'' I want to spend a moment or two focusing on ``better options [than a shutdown] exist for achieving success'' because the Senate continues to work on several measures, including key pieces of legislation that would advance the culture of life in this country--legislation such as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This would do what Texas has already done, which is to say there can be no elective abortions after 5 months of gestation. It is at this stage in development--just 20 weeks--that many experts believe an unborn child can feel pain. I am still unclear why our Democratic friends across the aisle would block such a simple, moral imperative like protecting these young lives as they did last week, but I would like to also remind our friends across the aisle that this legislation is not going away, and we will not stop raising the visibility of this issue and making the point that a child at 5 months--a child with fingerprints and taste buds--deserves protection under the law. Our country also needs another piece of legislation that I cosponsored and that actually passed in the House. This is called the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act, which the Presiding Officer is the lead sponsor of. Quite simply, this bill would mandate that doctors provide infant care to newborns who survive an abortion procedure. This is different, I think, in kind from the defund Planned Parenthood debate. This is about the delivery of a born child and whether a physician or the abortion provider has any duty--which they should--to make sure that child gets the care they need so they can survive or whether they can, at their option, simply end that life as part of an abortion practice. It is a sad commentary on the conscience of America when we need a law like this to spell out the fact that doctors should care for babies once they are born. This legislation was introduced last week, and I hope we are successful--as I said, the Presiding Officer is the lead cosponsor--in getting broad support of cosponsors on this bill. Then we can go to Senator McConnell, the Senate majority leader, and ask him to schedule this legislation for a vote. So this bill, along with the pain-capable bill, will not only save thousands of unborn lives a year, but if enacted would be the biggest step forward for the pro-life movement since the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act was signed into law a decade ago. Both of these bills are part of a long-term, proactive strategy to fight for the lives of the unborn and to make this country one that truly prizes the life of the unborn as a young life with limitless potential. It took time for the enactment of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. I was in the Senate when we passed that legislation. It is incredible to me it took as long as it did for that to pass, but it also took a commitment from leaders to stand up, time and time again, not to just have one vote and then call it quits, to say we tried and we were unsuccessful, but to stay after it until we actually achieved passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. I believe, with the same sort of long-term commitment on the Pain-Capable bill and on the Born- Alive bill, we can continue to make progress in this House, as well as the House of Representatives, and to be able to tell our constituents back home we have changed the culture of Washington, DC, and on a national level and shown the respect for unborn life it deserves. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, last night, with an overwhelming vote, the Senate ended debate that will conclude the postcloture period, which will run until midnight tonight. Tomorrow morning the Senate will pass a continuing resolution appropriations bill that will keep the lights on and keep the Federal Government running. I have told my constituents that the irony of this is that we only appropriate funds for about 30 percent of the government, and half of that 30 percent, roughly, is for defense spending; 70 percent, as the Presiding Officer knows well since he is an expert in this area, is on autopilot. Since 2011, since the Budget Control Act, we have actually done a remarkably decent job of freezing the growth of discretionary spending. It is roughly at the 2007 appropriations level. But the problem is that without bipartisan cooperation, we are unable to touch the 70 percent of government spending that has been growing by leaps and bounds, and that simply can't continue. This year, for the first time since I believe 2009, under the new majority, the 114th Congress actually passed a budget, and that was a notable achievement. I am almost a little sheepish about mentioning that as an achievement because most people across America would think that is not something to be particularly proud of and that that should happen routinely, so why give anybody a pat on the back for doing something they ought to have done in the first place? But our budgets have been missing under this administration, and literally the last budget that was passed was 2009. One of the benefits of having a budget is there is a regular appropriations process. That may sound like getting in the weeds for most people, but this is the money we should be appropriating subject to spending caps to keep the government running. It is for items such as military construction and veterans' benefits, paying our men and women in uniform through the Defense appropriations bill. Those are essential items on which I know we would all agree. The only reason we had to deal with the drama of this so-called continuing resolution is because notwithstanding the fact that we actually passed a budget and notwithstanding the fact that the various appropriations subcommittees had passed a budget and indeed the whole Appropriations Committee had voted them out and they were available for action on the floor, our friends across the aisle decided they were going to block those appropriations bills. Given the fact that under Senate rules it takes 60 votes to close off debate, our only alternative was to pass a continuing resolution, which I believe will fly out of here tomorrow morning with overwhelming support. It is a terrible way to do business, and it creates needless uncertainty for the people we ought to be caring a lot about--people such as our veterans and our military servicemembers. Even though we had the opportunity to move the appropriations process under what we call regular order around here and not resort to this continuing resolution process, our Democratic colleagues decided instead to turn their misguided filibuster summer into an equally misguided filibuster fall. Many of these bills, of course, came out with strong support. Here is an example of some of the oddity of this process: Some of the bills they blocked were the very same pieces of legislation they supported in the Appropriations Committee. For example, many of my colleagues from across the aisle praised elements of the Defense appropriations bill, only to then buckle under the Democratic leadership's pressure and twice block the bill from going forward. In some cases, our Democratic colleagues were quick to send out press releases to their constituents back home celebrating their accomplishments under these very same bills and claiming a victory that would benefit their home State. That was true in particular of both of our colleagues representing the State of New Jersey. When the bill was overwhelmingly voted out of committee, our colleagues from New Jersey applauded funding for a bill for F-16 fighters based in their State. The junior Senator said: ``The inclusion of this funding is a deserving victory for our U.S. Air National Guard.'' Similarly, the senior Senator said: ``Securing this funding in the Department of Defense Appropriation bill is a win, win, win.'' But these same Senators filibustered that bill on the Senate floor. How do you explain that one back home? And they did that twice, along with virtually all of our Democratic colleagues. Unfortunately, the other 11 appropriations bills haven't made it to the Senate floor because the majority leader recognizes that it is probably a futile effort to do so--bills that many of our colleagues celebrated, only to then refuse to take action that would move them forward, at the behest of Democratic leadership. We didn't have to resort to this drama, and believe me, our Democratic colleagues have been beating the drum, saying: There is going to be a shutdown. There is going to be a shutdown. Well, they are the ones who created this crisis in the first place that necessitated the passage of a continuing resolution by filibustering the very same appropriations bills many of them voted for in committee and sent out press releases saying: Look at me. Look at what I have done for my constituents. I don't know how to put a better word on it, but I think it reeks of hypocrisy at the very least. But I also believe we have a responsibility--those of us who choose to operate in a responsible fashion--to try to govern the best we can even in the face of such arbitrary hypocrisy by some of our opponents. They blocked the very same bills on the floor that they voted for in the Appropriations Committee, thus creating this ``crisis.'' I put quotes around that. There was never really a crisis because we knew we were going to do our job and make sure we kept the lights on, paid the money to our veterans for the benefits they earned, and that our military--many of whom are in harm's way defending our freedoms and those of our allies--was going to be taken care of. But the idea that you would vote for bills in committee and then come to the floor and block them is hard to explain, and, in fact, I can't explain it other than using the word ``hypocrisy.'' Another element of this discussion has been whether we would use this continuing resolution to cut off money to Planned Parenthood. As we know, Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. Well over 300,000 abortions are done at Planned Parenthood facilities each year. I want to assure our Democratic colleagues, even though they have filibustered our efforts to defund Planned Parenthood and to make sure that not one penny of tax dollars goes to support the No. 1 abortion provider in America, this fight is not over, based on their filibustering of the defund Planned Parenthood legislation that we voted on or their refusal to even consider the pain-capable abortion ban. We have said it before, but it bears repeating. I think most people would be shocked to find out that the United States is only one of seven nations in the world that allows late-term abortions after a baby in utero is a viable human being. We are right there alongside the great defenders of human rights such as China, North Korea, and Vietnam. While many States such as my State have imposed limitations at the State level, I think it is appropriate for us to recognize that medical technology has now allowed us to save preterm babies that we could not in the past. In fact, the distinguished Presiding Officer, I believe, has shown me a picture on his iPhone of a child that was born that weighed, I believe, somewhere around 1 pound at 20 weeks or so. So we ought to be having this debate because I think what it reflects is who we are as a nation and whether we want to continue to subsidize the sort of horrific practices we have seen depicted in some of these videos, and most of them involve late-term abortions because that is where the money is. That is where Planned Parenthood harvests tissue from these late-term babies and then sells them. The only question is whether they do it with the appropriate legal informed consent and whether they do it for profit, as some of these videos would suggest, both of which, by the way, are banned by current law--selling it for profit and doing it without informed consent. Both of those are current provisions of the law. We are conducting investigations in four different committees in the Congress to make sure Planned Parenthood is not in violation of current law, in addition to the steps we have begun to both make sure no tax dollars go to Planned Parenthood to subsidize their abortion practice--the largest abortion provider in the United States--and then to redirect that money to provide for women's health at community health centers and other places. I was surprised this morning when I caught a glimpse of the hearing that is occurring over in the House of Representatives where Cecile Richards, the chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood, is testifying. Somebody asked her about her compensation. I was shocked that she said: Well, I get paid $520,000 a year--$520,000 a year. This money--the vast majority of the money that Planned Parenthood gets is Federal tax dollars, primarily through Medicaid. So, in effect, the taxpayers are subsidizing the chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood--the No. 1 abortion provider in the country--her salary of $520,000 a year. I remember after the financial crisis in 2008, a number of our colleagues would come to the floor and say: We need to do something about these excessive salaries of people working in the financial services industry; this is an outrage. But I will tell my colleagues, I haven't heard one peep out of our colleagues across the aisle about the $520,000 that Cecile Richards is paid each year as CEO of Planned Parenthood, the No. 1 abortion provider in the country and an entity subsidized mainly or in large part, I should say, by U.S. tax dollars-- about one-half billion dollars a year. Maybe that is a discussion we ought to have. The last thing I want to say is I think it is important to stress, in the context of this debate, the value and the meaning of human life that the fight is not over with the votes we have had so far. It is important to stress how some of the advocates back home in Texas, for example--some of the strongest champions for the unborn in the country--have made clear how they hope their elected representatives will respond to these horrific videos and the current debate. Just yesterday, for example, the executive director of the Texas Alliance for Life, Dr. Joe Pojman, said he applauded the strong efforts of Republican leadership in Congress to move forward with the strategy of shifting funds from Planned Parenthood to better providers of women's health services--providers that are not part of the abortion industry. Indeed, that is exactly what the Texas legislature has done, and it is something we need to do. In his statement, Dr. Pojman went on to say that instead of a government shutdown, better options exist for achieving success. This is similar to the statement made by Carol Tobias earlier, the leader of the National Right to Life organization. In other words, at this pivotal moment in time, Congress has an opportunity to make progress with legislation that would further the cause for life and defend those who cannot defend themselves and to put on record all 100 Members of the Senate. I know many people would prefer to look the other way because of the gruesomeness of this practice, particularly as it regards late-term fetuses--children who, if born, even though they are not full term at 40 weeks, could literally live outside of the womb. In fact, neonatologists, as I mentioned a moment ago, have demonstrated incredible capability of keeping these children alive even if they are born preterm. We will, I hope, have a vote on--Senator Ben Sasse from Nebraska has introduced a bill that has actually passed the House of Representatives called ``the born alive'' bill. This bill simply would say, if a child is born alive as a result of a botched abortion, the health care provider must do everything in their power to save and preserve that life. I think it is important to get every Senator on record on that issue because this is a little bit different than the issue of defunding Planned Parenthood. I think we ought to do both. We ought to ban funding of tax dollars for Planned Parenthood, the No. 1 abortion provider in the country, but we ought to also focus on the desensitization of America and the world to some of these horrific practices, some of which we were shocked by when Kermit Gosnell, an abortion doctor in Pennsylvania, would literally deliver these babies alive and then kill them. I know people don't want to talk about it. They don't want to think about it. They would prefer to just look the other way, but we can't, in the name of our very humanity, look the other way. We have to deal with this and where better to have that debate and discussion and to put people on the record than right here in the U.S. Senate. That is what our plan is going forward. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today has certainly been a historic day in Washington, DC. With the arrival of His Holiness Pope Francis this week, Washington has been flooded with the faithful who were eager to mark his first visit to the United States. I know my colleagues and I are grateful we were able to host him at a joint meeting of Congress, and we were all in awe of his incredible stamina given his schedule-- something we are not unfamiliar with. As head of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis leads a diverse community of believers. Catholics in the United States make up about one-fifth of the population in the United States and also in my home State of Texas. In fact, Catholic priests from Spain were some of our earliest settlers in Texas, and one of the dozens of missions established by the Catholic Church early in the 18th century in Texas was Mission San Antonio de Valero, what would later be called the Alamo. It was a privilege to welcome Pope Francis this morning and to hear his remarks. I am told he was the first pontiff ever to address a joint meeting of Congress. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo It was also my honor to host a friend of mine, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, who accepted my invitation to join me today to hear Pope Francis. Cardinal DiNardo is the archbishop of Galveston-Houston, home to more than 1 million Catholics--the largest number of the 15 dioceses in Texas. I have had the honor of knowing Cardinal DiNardo for a number of years, and I am grateful to him for his unwavering commitment to life and for his extreme compassion in both a pastoral and spiritual sense as well as a practical one. We saw that in action recently when historic flooding devastated many of the communities in the Houston area. During that time, Cardinal DiNardo was quick to ensure that Catholic Charities would provide some relief to those in need. There is no doubt that his leadership will continue to serve not only the Catholic community in the Galveston-Houston area well but also all of us in Texas. Mr. President, on another matter, earlier today Democrats blocked a measure that would fund the U.S. Government but redirect Federal money that currently goes to Planned Parenthood to go for women's health care at community health centers. Actually, there are many more community health centers in Texas than there are Planned Parenthood facilities. Earlier this week I outlined how the Democrats, while earlier calling for regular order in this Chamber, have delivered on their promise to block legislation from moving forward that would fund vital parts of our government, such as the men and women in uniform who defend us. This is in spite of the fact that earlier this year, as I believe the majority leader mentioned, members of the Appropriations Committee actually did the work we were elected to do. We passed a budget and then in a bipartisan way passed appropriations bills out of the Appropriations Committee. But because they have chosen to filibuster all of these appropriations bills, we find ourselves with unneeded and unnecessary drama when it comes to funding the Federal Government-- hence the vote on Monday for closing off debate on a continuing resolution to fund the government through December 11, 2015. Unfortunately, even our uniformed military has been taken hostage to this strategy, which has created unnecessary drama, as I said, and created some real hardship. So as we approach the looming fiscal deadline of next Wednesday at midnight, it is important to remember how we got here. While Democrats filibustered legislation that would have removed all Federal funding for Planned Parenthood, this fight--the fight for the sanctity of life Pope Francis talked about this morning--is far from over. We are going to continue the four different investigations of Planned Parenthood's practices and pursue legislation that would protect the fundamental right to life of the unborn. Protecting the sanctity of life is an ongoing mission, and it does not end with this one vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, unfortunately, our Democratic friends have now blocked another vital piece of legislation from moving forward by a vote of 54 to 42. The cloture vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act has failed on that cloture vote. But I want to point out to our colleagues that this is not the end of this discussion. This is the beginning of the discussion once again. I would point out that over the years we have actually been making some progress in favor of an agenda that favors life. In 2007 eight Senate Republicans opposed defunding Planned Parenthood, by 2011 five Senate Republicans opposed defunding Planned Parenthood, and in August just one Senator opposed it by voting to filibuster the bill. Last time we had zero Democratic Senators vote on such a measure. In August we got two. The pain-capable bill that was blocked by Senate Democrats last year, of course, is what we just voted on again. Today we had an opportunity to be on the record and advocate for what is a top priority for pro- life groups. There is legislation that has passed in the House of Representatives--namely, the born-alive piece of legislation, which really shouldn't divide Congress the way perhaps the defunding of Planned Parenthood bill has because at some point, whether you are pro- choice or pro-life, hopefully we can agree that a child who is basically grown to full-term in their mother should be protected from the abortion industries. I think we are going to have other opportunities to vote on that issue. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is really a moral imperative for our Nation. It says a lot about who we are as a country. This Chamber just had the opportunity to send a clear message that America is a nation that seeks to advance a culture of life and opportunity for everyone, particularly those who are the most vulnerable. As a father of two daughters, I don't understand the rationale of some of my colleagues on the other side. Do they believe there should be no limitation on access to abortion at all? No limit? Well, we will have an opportunity for another vote that perhaps will give them a chance to go on record on the born-alive bill that passed the House of Representatives last week. Unfortunately, I think it appears that by blocking this vote, some of our colleagues were simply unable to cast aside the pressures of special interest groups to take a stand for life. But it is important to note for pro- life Members such as myself that protecting the sanctity of life is an ongoing mission, and it doesn't end with this one vote. Mr. President, briefly on another matter, we will shortly consider or reconsider another vote that should be a clear-cut issue. This vote would make sure that our military has what they need in order to protect our country and deal with the rising and diverse threats to national security occurring around the world. This will most pointedly help our troops maintain their status as the greatest military. The Defense appropriations bill includes simple initiatives that make sense and serve our troops well, such as giving them a well-deserved pay raise. I think it is worth reminding those here today that this will be the second opportunity to move this legislation forward. Earlier, our colleagues across the aisle blocked this Defense appropriations bill that provides critical funding for our troops and refused to allow it to move forward. That legislation, as the majority leader pointed out, was voted overwhelmingly out of the Appropriations Committee in June with the support of many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who then turned and voted against it on the floor. I guess, in the famous words of John Kerry, they were for it before they were against it. So the bill we will be considering and voting on shortly is not a piece of partisan legislation, but holding up this legislation is unfortunately indicative of a larger strategy of keeping the Senate tied in knots and making it impossible for it to function as intended. If the goal is to stymie real progress, I would have to congratulate our friends across the aisle. But unfortunately they have taken as a hostage in this partisan political fight the very military which they claim to support and which I believe they do support, but their vote certainly does not indicate that when they vote against funding our troops. I would point out that in 2013 the Democratic leader himself advocated for something we call regular order around here when it comes to setting our Nation's fiscal policy. Fortunately, this year, under the new majority, we were able to pass a budget for the first time since 2009. But then what should have happened after that is the Appropriations Committee should have done its work--in fact, it did do its work--and then those bills would come to the floor and they would be voted on by the Senate. But that is what our Democratic colleagues have blocked. I think they have gone a bridge too far in blocking the funding for our military, particularly with the headlines we see in the newspapers and the conflicts arising and spreading across the world. So this is the first time in 6 years that the Appropriations Committee has approved and reported out all 12 appropriations bills. But then these bills became hostage to something our Democratic friends called ``filibuster summer''--a political strategy telegraphed from the pages of the Washington Post just last June to block all appropriations bills. I said it then and it bears repeating that stifling debate and blocking votes is a pretty lousy political strategy, and it is not what the American people sent us here to do. It is what lost my friends across the aisle control of this Chamber nearly a year ago. It is a losing strategy, it is bad policy, and it is cynical politics. It is simply shameful to take these partisan political fights to the point of denying our troops the resources they need in order to do their job. So the Appropriations Committee has done its work on a bipartisan basis and painstakingly drafted, considered, and passed all 12 appropriations bills. Now this Chamber should do our job and move those appropriations bills forward, starting with the Defense appropriations bill. Now that the majority leader has moved to reconsider that failed vote, earlier blocked by our Democratic colleagues, I hope our friends across the aisle have had a chance to reconsider and to think carefully about the ramifications of their decision and that they will join us in moving this bill forward. The world is far too dangerous and the threats are far too real to take this important piece of legislation hostage and prevent the resources going to the troops, who simply deserve it. Quite simply, we have no time to lose when it comes to fulfilling one of our most basic duties to the American people: defending against threats to national security. I would urge my fellow colleagues to join me in moving this important bill forward. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).