John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I could close with a followup question.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I could ask the Senator from Maine one final question.

Mr. CORNYN. The Senator from Maine has been very patient with me. If I could ask two final questions. Given the 22 different public statements the President of the United States himself said about his lack of authority to do what he did in November of 2014, given the reservations publicly expressed and reported by a number of Members on that side of the aisle about what the President has done, and given the fact there are 11 Democratic Senators who come from States that filed a lawsuit to block the President's Executive action, can the Senator from Maine understand why the Democratic minority would try to block the Senator's amendment, which would put all Senators on record as to whether they agree with the President when he said that 22 times, whether they agree with the court that issued the preliminary injunction, and whether they agree with their own States that participated in this litigation to block the implementation of this unlawful order? Can the Senator think of any reason why they would try to block or defeat the Senator's amendment and put all Members of the Senate on record?

Mr. CORNYN. I have to say to my friend, the Senator from Maine, that the Constitution is written in a way that divides government's authority between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. And I, of course, agree that there can be no justification on the part of the President that somehow Congress hadn't acted enough or quickly enough or expansively enough to justify the extension of his authority under the Constitution. I wish to ask my friend from Maine another question in order to drill down on her earlier point. It seems to me that the Senator from Illinois, the distinguished minority whip, is making the suggestion that we are mad about people benefiting from this Executive action, which, to my mind, could not be further from the truth. We all understand the aspirations of people wanting a better way of life and to have opportunities, but isn't it true that when we all take an oath to uphold the constitutional laws of the United States--whether you are the President or a Senator--we have a sacred obligation to make sure no branch, including the President, usurps the authority of another branch or violates those constitutional limitations?

Mr. CORNYN. My friend has been enormously patient with me. We are trying to drill this issue down here so all of the Members of the Senate understand exactly what the Collins amendment does and does not do. We have talked about the fact that not only are there Members of the Senate who are on record saying what the President did was an overreach, there are 11 Democratic Senators who come from States that filed a suit claiming irreparable damages to their States and will have an opportunity to vote for the Collins amendment--hopefully here soon. I wish to ask the Senator: There is one part of what the President's Executive order does that, to me, stands out above and beyond the constitutional issues, and that is the ability of people who have committed domestic violence, child exploitation, sexual abuse, and child molestation to somehow get kicked back to the end of the line when it comes to being repatriated to their state. For example, we all understand, as I said earlier, immigrants come here for a better life. We all understand that. We would hope they would come and play by the rules as opposed to not playing by the rules. Why in the world would the President want to reward, in effect, people who have committed domestic violence, child exploitation, sexual abuse, and child molestation by moving them down to a second-tier status of priority when it comes to repatriation? Is the Senator familiar with what I am referring to? Perhaps my friend can enlighten us further on that.

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator from Maine for her leadership on this important amendment. To me it is unthinkable that Senators would block a vote on the Collins amendment at some point in the process this week because what it does, as the Senator has pointed out, is basically reinforce what the President said himself 22 different times when he said he didn't have the authority. It reaffirms what the Federal District Court held in Brownsville recently, and which 26 States filed suit on. I share the Senator's bewilderment, really, at how on one hand we can be condoning people coming into the country and showing disrespect not only for our immigration laws but compounding that disrespect with these heinous offenses, such as domestic violence, child exploitation, sexual abuse, and child molestation, particularly after we voted unanimously out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis these anti-trafficking bills the Senator spoke about. I want to close by thanking the Senator and the women of the Senate for leading us toward passage of this anti-trafficking legislation, but to also point out, once again, the complete unacceptability of this idea that somehow we are going to play games by blocking the Collins amendment vote and somehow condoning the same conduct on one hand and on the other hand we are condemning them through the passage of this anti-trafficking legislation. I thank the Senator and the Presiding Officer.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. 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 Cornyn amendment be agreed to, the resolution, as amended, be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the Cornyn amendment to the title be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on Tuesday of next week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will make an historic address before the Congress. This is his third address as Prime Minister of Israel. At the invitation of Speaker Boehner, he is coming to discuss Iran's nuclear ambitions and the ongoing P5+1 negotiations, as well as the rise of the Islamic State terrorist group and other jihadist groups across the Middle East. These are obviously serious issues of national security, both for Israel but also for us here in the United States, and Prime Minister Netanyahu and the citizens of Israel have a unique perspective on those issues. In the interest of staying fully informed and aligned with our closest ally in the region, Israel, Congress needs to listen to what Prime Minister Netanyahu has to say, and I look forward to doing so. I believe the Prime Minister's speech will be both informative and timely, as the Obama administration is reportedly trying to lock down a questionable nuclear deal with the Iranians by the March 24 deadline. That is why I have introduced S. Res. 76 that welcomes the Prime Minister of Israel to the United States for his address to Congress. This resolution explains just a few of the reasons why the U.S.-Israel alliance is so powerful and so enduring, and it states in part that we welcome the Prime Minister and eagerly await his address before Congress. This resolution reaffirms our commitment to stand with Israel in times of uncertainty, strongly supports Israel's right to self- defense, and finally reaffirms our support and the friendship between our two countries. These sentiments are widely shared in Congress, but in an increasingly perilous global security environment in which we find ourselves, I think it is important to remind people of how and why the United States stands with Israel. A majority of Senators have cosponsored this resolution, and I believe today it is time for the Senate to pass it, to reaffirm there will be no daylight between the United States and Israel when it comes to common issues of national security. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 76.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 25, 2015 at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 25, 2015 at 2:30 p.m.

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 February 25, 2015 at 10 a.m., to conduct a joint hearing with the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 25, 2015 at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President's FY2016 Budget Request for Indian programs.''

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 February 25, 2015, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Toward a 21st Century Regulatory System.''

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 February 25, 2015, at 1:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Fight Against ISIS: Building the Coalition and Ensuring Military Effectiveness.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Evironment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 25, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Importance of MAP-21 Reauthorization: Perspectives from Owners, Operators, and Users of the System.''

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 February 25, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SR- 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Preserving the Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, when given the opportunity four times over the last few weeks to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, while at the same time rolling back the President's unconstitutional Executive action on immigration, four times our Senate Democratic friends have filibustered this funding. At the same time, they have been pointing to this side of the aisle and saying: If there is a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, you are at fault. It is hypocrisy, to say the least. But of all the Democrats who voted to filibuster the funding of the Department of Homeland Security--which, again, expires at midnight on this Friday night--there are 11 of our Senate Democratic colleagues who come from States which are parties to a lawsuit in Brownsville, TX, where the Federal judge issued a temporary injunction just last week saying that what the President did in his Executive action was illegal--illegal. So how our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can filibuster the Department of Homeland Security funding because they say it includes a disapproval of the President's action at the same time the States they represent are parties to a lawsuit complaining about the illegality of the President's actions--how they can reconcile that is beyond me. Perhaps they can come to the floor and talk about that. But I think they should be asked that question, and I would be very interested in their answer. Of course, as we all know, now the Obama administration--after the Federal judge agreed with what the President said 22 different times, that he didn't have the authority to do what he did--and, obviously, he changed his mind. But after the Federal judge agreed with what he said the first 22 times, that he didn't have the authority, now they have asked for a stay of that temporary injunction. If the reports in the press are correct, Judge Hanen in Brownsville, in the Southern District of Texas, has given the States, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, until March 2 to respond to this request for emergency stay. One by one, the folks who criticized what the President was doing in one fashion or another came to the floor and have voted in effect to affirm what he did. As I said yesterday, in justifying these votes we heard a common refrain from several of our Democratic colleagues, including some of those 11 whose States have joined the lawsuit against the President's Executive action. They have said to us: We don't necessarily agree with the President's action, but you shouldn't attach that to an appropriations bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Similarly, from Senate Democratic leadership came the demands for a ``clean bill''--a clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security--without these provisions addressing the Executive action attached. Just 2 days ago here on the floor, the Democratic leader himself called for the Senate to vote on such a bill. A press release issued from Senator Reid's office was unequivocal: ``Reid Remarks Calling On Senate GOP To Avoid A Shutdown By Passing A Clean DHS Funding Bill.'' Monday wasn't the first time we heard this from Democratic leadership. We heard it over and over and over, as the Democrats, in lockstep, filibustered the Department of Homeland Security funding bill. So imagine my surprise when Senator McConnell, the Senate majority leader, offered to consider two bills, one that would address the President's Executive action from last November--the Collins bill--and a separate one that would fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. You would, I guess, if logic prevailed in this place, expect that the Democratic leader would embrace that wholeheartedly, instantaneously, saying: That is exactly what we have been demanding, and now we have been offered it. We will take it. Well, that didn't happen. This place can be very confusing sometimes, and you would be wrong if you thought the Democratic leader embraced what he had been demanding for the last few weeks. So after spending weeks demanding a clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, including as recently as Monday, 24 hours have passed and the Democratic leader has still refused to agree to hold a vote on a so- called clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill. Let me just repeat that so I am absolutely clear. The Democratic leader has so far refused to agree to vote on a clean funding bill for the Department, even after he called on Senate Republicans to pass exactly that as recently as Monday. So I don't know how to sugar coat it. Call it a flip-flop, call it disingenuous. I don't know what to call it. But when you are offered exactly what you have been demanding and you don't accept it, it tells me you are not particularly serious about wanting to solve the problem. It is this kind of doubletalk which I think causes the Senate to be held in low regard by the American people, where they think that what you say doesn't necessarily translate into action. It is becoming abundantly clear that our friends across the aisle do not seem to have gotten the message from the last election on November 4. I mentioned this yesterday, and I will repeat it, with reference to some of the gamesmanship that appears to be going on here, at the time when the clock is ticking and the Department of Homeland Security funding runs out at midnight on Friday. Recently, the senior Senator from New York told the Huffington Post that ``it's really fun to be in the Senate Minority,'' as if creating obstacles, slowing things down, and impeding progress toward a goal that we all hold in common--funding the Department of Homeland Security--is somehow having fun. But filibustering critical funding for the men and women that protect us every day and protect the homeland is not what I call fun. At the end of the day, the Senate will make sure that those who protect our borders, our ports, and our skies get paid. That is what the American people voted for last November. They were sick and tired. If I heard it once, I heard it 100 times: We are sick and tired of the dysfunction in Washington, DC, and that is why we are voting for a change. That is why we have nine new colleagues in the Senate--to break that logjam of dysfunction. So I would implore the Democratic leader to heed his own call for a clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill and to quit playing games. Quit playing games with the lives of the people who work at the Department of Homeland Security. Quit playing games with the American people, whose security is on the line if for some reason the ability of the Department to perform its important functions is disrupted because of the lack of funding. Quit playing games with the funding that pays the salaries of the men and women who protect our ports, who protect our airports, and who protect our border from transnational drug cartels. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, for weeks now Senate Democrats have repeatedly blocked the Senate from even considering a $40 billion funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security that would extend through the end of the fiscal year, the end of September. They have done it not once, not twice, not three times, but four times. Four times they have filibustered this Department of Homeland Security funding bill that would pay the salaries of the men and women who protect our ports, our airports, and our border. Meanwhile, our friends across the aisle are telling the American people: No, it is not us blocking this funding, it is the Republicans. Well, I beg to differ. The House of Representatives has actually passed a Homeland Security appropriations bill--the bill we tried to get on four different times and the Democrats don't seem satisfied with the ability to offer amendments to change it or modify it in any way that they can command 60 votes to do. Their attitude is: We are not even going to consider it unless we get everything we want right upfront. I guess I can kind of understand why they are of that frame of mind because over the last few years, the Senate has become completely dysfunctional. Under the previous majority leader, there wasn't any opportunity to offer amendments and get votes on those amendments on legislation. It was a ``my way or the highway'' proposition. In other words, what I am saying is the Senate was broken, and after years of running the Senate as an incumbent protection program and voting on only poll-tested messages and blocking amendments, last November the American people said, enough is enough; no more dysfunction. Let's have a Senate and a Congress that represents our interests, not the interests of protecting incumbents against taking tough votes. I believe our colleagues who have blocked consideration of this funding amendment should be, frankly, ashamed of themselves. It doesn't seem as though they have gotten the message. The senior Senator from New York, Senator Schumer, who is a member of the leadership and my friend, told the Huffington Post recently that ``it is really fun to be in the minority.'' By that, I guess he means it is fun to block Homeland Security appropriations bills not once, not twice, not three times, but four separate times. But filibustering this critical funding for the men and women who protect us every day is not my idea of fun, nor is it, I suspect, for the thousands of men and women who work in the Department of Homeland Security, from the Coast Guard to the Border Patrol to all of the people who work day in and day out to try and help keep us safe in the homeland. When given the opportunity four times over the last few weeks to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security while rolling back the President's unconstitutional Executive action, four times Senate Democrats have taken the low road and continued to obstruct. Over the last several weeks, we pointed out the tough talk that came from some Senate Democrats last fall when the President issued his Executive action on immigration back when the President made his intent clear to follow through with a series of unilateral actions that he had previously said, on 22 different occasions, he didn't have the authority to do. Twenty-two times the President said publicly he didn't have the authority to do it, and last November, after being encouraged to wait until after the election so it didn't have a negative blowback on people running for the Senate, he went ahead and did it anyway. As I noted before, some of our colleagues on the other side expressed their concerns at the time. Some said it made them feel uncomfortable, and some said: I wish he wouldn't do it. Well, no kidding. When the President usurps the authority given under the Constitution to the legislative branch of government and seeks to arrogate to himself the power to unilaterally change the law, they should feel uncomfortable. One by one these same folks who were so concerned and so uncomfortable with what the President did last November have come down to the floor and voted in lockstep. They voted, in effect, to reaffirm the President's actions. In justifying these votes, we heard the common refrain, we don't necessarily agree with the President's Executive actions, but an appropriations bill is not the proper vehicle to address them. That is what they said time and time again. So now we have a pretty simple and straightforward message to our Democratic friends who were so concerned and so uncomfortable and who wished the President had not gone around Congress on immigration. We are here to say: Here is your chance. This week the Senate will take up a bill that will address the President's Executive actions that were announced last November. Senator McConnell, the majority leader, made it clear last night that this targeted bill is not tied to the Department of Homeland Security funding. Under the regular rules of the Senate, the process he set in order last night will come to fruition on Friday, and that will be the time for all of our colleagues on this side of the aisle and the ones on the other side of the aisle who expressed disapproval of the President's Executive action to vote for a bill that expresses that disapproval--the so-called Collins bill. My strong preference would be to pass the House bill--that has been filibustered four separate times by our Democratic friends--because it fully funds the Department while reining in the President's overreach. But since the Democrats have refused on four different occasions to even allow the bill to come to the floor with the excuse that it is tied to the Department of Homeland Security funding, we are going to give them an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is. In other words, we are going to see if they can take yes for an answer. If all of the occasions where my colleagues said they were uncomfortable with the President's actions are not enough--if the 22 times the President himself said he didn't have the authority to issue this Executive action--well, we now know that during the recess last week a Federal judge in Texas has given us one more reason. A week ago U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, TX, ruled in a lawsuit brought by 26 different States, including Texas, that what the President did was illegal. He issued a temporary injunction blocking implementation of the President's Executive action. If that were the end of it, any amount of money that was appropriated by the Congress to fund the Department of Homeland Security could not legally be used to fund the President's Executive action because there is an injunction in place issued by a Federal court that says you can't do it, and, indeed, the administration has acknowledged that. They stood down, but now they have come back to the judge and asked for a stay of the judge's temporary injunction. They said if they don't get that, they will go to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans and ask the appellate court to stay the judge's temporary injunction. Judge Hanen's ruling enforces what I and many others have been saying for a long time, that the President acted outside of the law when he went around Congress to unilaterally change our Nation's immigration laws. But the judge's ruling gets to a broader issue, and there is one part of it that I found particularly important. In writing his opinion explaining his ruling, Judge Hanen looked at the Obama administration's case and imagined how you could take their argument and apply it across the board. It is easy to overlook and overreach what the President has said if you perhaps agree with what he actually accomplished, which is, in effect, to give legal status to roughly 5 million people. If you think that is a good idea, you are likely to turn a blind eye to the way the President did it. But if the courts establish the precedent that this President--or any future President, Republican or Democrat--can pick and choose which laws to enforce, what could end up happening? Well, it doesn't take a lot of imagination. Judge Hanen writes: ``then a lack of resources''--which is the argument that was made by the administration--``would be an acceptable reason to cease enforcing environmental laws, or the Voting Rights Act, or even the various laws that protect civil rights and equal opportunity.'' That is what Judge Hanen said in his opinion in repudiating the argument made by the administration that the President had this authority and talked about what kind of dangerous precedent it would set if it were accepted by the court as legal. I am sure I am not the only one who would hate to see our country head down that sort of lawless path where the laws don't make any difference, it is just the preference of whoever is President which determines the direction the country should take. That is a dangerous path. It is completely inconsistent with who we are as a country that believes in the rule of law. So now that the President's actions have been settled in the court of public opinion, where they are deeply unpopular, and ruled upon by a court of law, my friends from the other side of the aisle need to take note because they have a very clear choice. They can continue to give excuses for why they are filibustering this $40 billion Homeland Security appropriations bill or, as I said, they can put their money where their mouth is and vote to stop the President's 2014 Executive action separate and apart from any issue of funding of the Department of Homeland Security. At the end of the day, the Senate will make sure the people who protect our borders and our ports and our skies get paid because that is the responsible thing to do. Senate Democrats, who were so concerned and so uncomfortable with what the President did last fall, are out of excuses, and they are going to have a chance to vote on the Collins amendment on Friday or at some other time mutually agreed upon by the majority and the minority. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Maj. Warren Bruce, a Marine fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the legislative session.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

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.