John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I ask the Senator from Kentucky--I think you described how the administration appears to not just have a war on coal but a war on hydrocarbons, a war on anything other than wind turbines and solar panels. The President said he is for all of the above. We are a big ``all of the above'' State. We have a lot of sunshine and wind. We actually produce more electricity from wind energy than any other State in the country, but it is hard to understand this ideological battle against coal and oil and gas from anywhere other than just an ideological perspective. I think the Senators have pointed out well--both the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Kentucky--that these are good, high- paying jobs. One of the biggest problems we have had in the country for the last 30 years has been stagnant wages. The middle-class wage earners are not seeing their wages go up. One of the surefire ways to make them go up is to develop more domestic energy, whether it is coal or whether it is oil or gas, because these are good, high-paying jobs. I can tell you not just in North Dakota, where I am sure it is hard for restaurants to find people to work there because there is so much demand in the oil and gas business, but the Permian Basin, in the Midland Odessa area, where I know the Senator from Kentucky visited many times, there is a shortage of labor, and wages skyrocketed because of the demand as a result of taking advantage of this natural resource. I would just ask--obviously the Members of the Senate who have been vitally interested in this issue under the leadership of our friend, the Senator from North Dakota--it has been acknowledged, but I think it is only fair, wouldn't the Senator say, to acknowledge the leadership in the House of Representatives of Congressman Bill Cassidy. As a matter of fact, the bill that the House will pass tomorrow and send over here is chiefly the work product of Congressman Bill Cassidy.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, what happened on November 4 was the beginning of an opportunity--an opportunity we have to work together to restore faith in our Democratic institutions, to restore strong growth to our economy, and to restore a sense of purpose and principle to U.S. foreign policy. Starting with the incoming majority leader, my good friend, the senior Senator from Kentucky, Republicans have been entrusted by our fellow citizens to lead this Chamber next year. We understand the American people sent a strong message on November 4 that they were enormously frustrated by what they saw as dysfunction and the state of affairs in Washington, DC. We understand why they are eager for new leadership and a new direction. My party, the Republican Party, approaches this opportunity with humility and, above all, a clear-eyed commitment to address the top priorities of the American people. Of course, those priorities start with jobs and the economy. I know the unemployment rate has continued to tick down little by little, but it is fairly misleading when we consider the fact that we are stuck with a 36-year low in the labor participation rate--the percentage of people who are actually looking for work. Indeed, there are still more than 7 million people looking for full-time work and working currently in part-time jobs. We know many people have become so discouraged that they have simply given up and they have quit looking, and that is a tragedy. Then there is this problem: America's median household income is no higher in 2013 than it was nearly a quarter of a century ago, in 1989. That has been a silent tragedy--one that has been sustained by the middle class in America, who have seen no growth in their median household income for about a quarter of a century. The median income was lower last year than it was the year President Reagan left the White House. That is simply astonishing. It has crushed the middle class. Addressing that should be one of our highest priorities in the new Congress starting in January. Since 2011, our colleagues in the House of Representatives have been passing legislation they feel would boost job creation and increase wages. In the 113th Congress alone, they passed dozens of jobs bills. Unfortunately, as we know, those have not been taken up by the majority leader in the Senate, and they have been effectively declared dead on arrival. Then we also know this strategy of blocking amendments on pending legislation to prevent vulnerable incumbents from being forced to cast tough votes has backfired, because many of our colleagues in the majority have not been able to point to a legislative record of effectiveness for their own constituents because of this flawed strategy of blocking the Senate from considering amendments and voting on them. It is one thing to be in the minority and have the amendments or suggestions I am offering added, but it is harder to explain to your own constituents if you are in the majority and you are being blocked out too. So I hope we are done with that. I know the incoming majority leader, Senator McConnell, believes strongly in returning the Senate to its traditions as the world's greatest deliberative body, where anyone, regardless of who they are or which political party they are affiliated with, can come to the Senate floor and offer constructive suggestions and get a vote. That is what we do--at least that is what we used to do, and that is what we can do again, and that doesn't mean just the majority party gets votes on their amendments; that means the minority party will get votes on their amendments. Hopefully, slowly but surely, we can begin to rebuild not only trust and confidence within ourselves and this institution, but regain the lost trust of the American people by showing that we can effectively solve problems on a bipartisan basis to the challenges they face as members of the hard-working middle class. Then there is the basic job of governing. We will pass a budget next year--something our friends across the aisle have failed to do since 2009. Now, here is something I do not think anybody will excuse or defend: How in the world can it be that when every small and large business in America has to have a budget, when families have to have a budget so they can determine their priorities and how they can most effectively utilize their income, that they have to pass a budget but the U.S. Congress does not? That is, frankly, malpractice, in my view, and it has to end, and it will end next year. I know Republicans and Democrats will continue to have policy disagreements. Nobody is suggesting that is not going to happen. But this is the place where those get debated, where they get voted on, and where majorities will actually pass legislation and send it to President Obama. And those will be largely, if not almost entirely bipartisan majorities, of course, by definition. We know Democrats by and large continue to support the Affordable Care Act and Republicans continue to believe it was a mistake and should be replaced with patient-centered alternatives. But we do not have to choose between complete paralysis and actually functioning. Dysfunction is not the only choice we have, and now that that has been rejected by the voters resoundingly, we know a change is in order. The American people have demanded it, they deserve it, and they will get it. So last week's election will not change some of the fundamental policy differences we have between political parties on ObamaCare, on what we need to do to preserve and protect Social Security and Medicare and the like, and it will not change people's points of view on other hot-button issues, but it will give us a chance to make some steady incremental progress on issues where we do agree. When I came to the Senate, Teddy Kennedy, the liberal lion from Massachusetts, had been here about 40 years, and he was working on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee with Mike Enzi, a conservative Republican from Wyoming. One day I went up to Mike Enzi and I said: Well, how is it that you and Senator Kennedy, with such diametrically opposing views on what the Congress ought to do and how to solve these problems, can actually work productively together? Senator Enzi said: That is easy. It is the 80-20 rule. The 80 percent we can agree on, we do. The 20 percent we cannot, we don't; we put off for another day. That strikes me as eminently practical and a way for us to begin to get back to work again. When I talk about the easy stuff we can do, I am referring to the bipartisan majority that supports things such as the Keystone XL Pipeline authorization, increasing our natural gas exports not only for the job creation and economic boost it gives us here in America but also because it changes the geopolitics of the world, where people such as Vladimir Putin cannot put a bootheel on the gas supply to Europe or Ukraine and use that for their own purposes. I am confident we can find commonsense safeguards from an overreaching Federal bureaucracy. We can agree on things such as improving workforce training programs and do things that make it much easier to launch new infrastructure and construction projects. We can do things we should have done last year or this year, such as reforming our broken patent system to discourage abusive and costly litigation. We actually had a bipartisan bill in the Judiciary Committee, but it did not come to the floor because the majority leader would not bring it up because one of his constituencies simply objected to it. Well, no one should have a trump card when it comes to good, bipartisan legislation, and they will not next year. We will vote on patent reform. Then there are things such as mitigating some of the burdens of ObamaCare, restoring the 40-hour workweek, and repealing the medical device tax, and there is strong bipartisan support for repealing that tax which has driven medical device manufacturers and their jobs overseas. I have constituents, for example, in Dallas in that business, and they say they are building their business in Costa Rica because of the impact of this medical device tax and its negative impact on medical innovation and job creation here. I do know there is bipartisan support for abolishing the Independent Payment Advisory Board under Medicare. This is 15 bureaucrats who basically get to decide who gets medical care and who does not, with no real appeal or recourse. In the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, we have had very impressive bipartisan support for things such as prison reform and even sentencing reform. Those are important issues of substance the Senate ought to be discussing, debating, voting on, and trying to find ways we can work together to achieve solutions. Each of the things I have mentioned has bipartisan support. If we can pass these measures with strong support on both sides of the aisle and send them to the President for his signature, it will be much easier to establish the trust and cooperation necessary to do the harder stuff. So starting with the easy stuff we have already identified that has bipartisan support-- demonstrating we can actually do that--then I think we will have confidence in ourselves, and the American people will have confidence in us and their government to begin to tackle some of the more challenging issues. Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, mentioned this, but it bears repeating: that the President is still threatening to go around Congress and use an Executive order to implement a new, radical change in our Federal Government's immigration policy, and I think it is a terrible mistake. At this same luncheon that the Senator from Kentucky mentioned, a number of us went down the line and said: Mr. President, please don't do this because if you do, it will make it even harder for us to take a step-by-step approach to immigration reform that enjoys bipartisan support. It will poison the well--not to mention the fact that what the President is proposing to do is unlawful and it will also make it harder for us to do the other things I have mentioned already that have bipartisan support. It will poison the well. Why in the world would the President want to do that at the start of a new Congress in the last 2 years of his term in office? Don't you think he would want to have some legacy that he could point to in those last 2 years, saying: Well, I might have been dealt a tough political hand with Republican majorities in the House and the Senate, but we were actually able to be productive. I think that is why most Senators have come here--to be productive. So I would urge the President, as others have done, in the very strongest of terms to abandon his plan for this Executive amnesty and to heed the message--the very clear message--voters sent last Tuesday. After a 6-year experiment in unfettered liberalism and big-government policies, the American people are asking for a new direction. I am not under any illusion that all of a sudden they have fallen in love with my side of the aisle. That is not true. But what they are willing to do is put us on probation and give us all a chance to demonstrate that we can change our course, we can listen to the American people, and we can do things together that they want to see us do. My constituents--6.5 million Texans--are sick and tired of watching the Federal Government waste their money, selectively enforce the law, and try to micromanage their lives as if the Federal Government knows better than they do what is good for them and their families. It is not true, and they know it, but that has not stopped the efforts over the last 6 years. What my constituents want, I believe--and I believe it because they have told me this--they want leaders who will respond to their practical day-to-day concerns, leaders who appreciate and will address the biggest threats to the American dream, leaders who will uphold the timeless principles of our Constitution. I believe there is a nascent, bipartisan, emerging consensus here that we can actually do this. This is not too hard for us to do. Yes, I have read what some of the pundits have said. They said it is going to be even worse with Republicans in charge. Well, it better not be worse or there will be a heavy price to pay, and most of that will be paid by the American people, who will not be well-served if we simply refuse to change and if we refuse to listen. And that goes for the President, that goes for Republicans, and that goes for Democrats. So for my part and I believe for our part on this side of the aisle, we are eager to work together to solve our country's problems, to help unleash this great American job-creating engine known as our economy, and to restore the rule of law and constitutional government. As for President Obama, we can only hope he decides to work with us rather than against us and against the best intentions and desires of the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Reservation Of Leader Time

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, a point of clarification. It is my understanding the Senator from Louisiana is not objecting to my amended request and has not posed another modification. I believe the question is, is there an objection to my modified request?

Mr. CORNYN. Reserving the right to object. Mr. President, we have been trying to get the Keystone Pipeline approved and on the President's desk since 2012. The leader on our side has been the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven. We have all supported this effort because we believe the State Department estimate that roughly 42,000 jobs would be created once the pipeline is approved. If the oil doesn't come to the United States and is not turned into fuel here, it will be shipped to China. Unfortunately, the majority has blocked this pipeline several times. It has been stalled for way too long, so I am glad to see some progress is being made, albeit at this late date, after a dramatic election on November 4. I ask the Senator to modify her request so that if the Senate passes S. 2280 and receives a bill from the House that is identical to S. 2280, then the House bill will be read three times and passed with no intervening action or debate, and thus we can send this bill directly to the President without further action.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I would like to pay tribute to a great American veteran, businessman, and leader, MG Josue Robles, Retired, or, as he prefers to be called, Joe. Joe is stepping down at the end of this year as the CEO and president of USAA, a great American institution based in San Antonio. His retirement marks a milestone in an inspirational and remarkable American story and the conclusion of an impressive career. He will be sorely missed not only by the employees at USAA but by the greater San Antonio community and beyond. The eldest of nine children, Joe was born in Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico, in 1946. His father was working as a waiter when he was approached by a group of Americans who were recruiting for steel mills in the United States. His dad went to work for U.S. Steel in Lorain, OH. Eighteen months later, when Joe was 3, his dad had saved enough money to send for the family. Their house in Ohio was six blocks from the steel mill, where his father worked for the next 35 years, in addition to part-time work as a carpenter and plumber to supplement his income. Starting at age 11 and throughout high school, Joe worked a variety of jobs at a local grocery store and in the neighborhood doing yard work. He worked in the steel mill one summer and learned very quickly what a hot, dirty, dangerous place it was. One summer there was enough, and it motivated Joe to go to school and get a good education so he would never have to shovel slag again. While in high school, Joe was awarded a medical school scholarship sponsored by the local medical society. They would pay for his education if he agreed to come back and practice medicine in his hometown. But first he had to earn an undergraduate degree. Joe graduated from high school in 1964 and worked that summer painting a house. The job paid enough to cover his first year of tuition at Lorain County Community College. Joe married that year and went to work full time at a nuclear plant, where he monitored radiation levels. Within 2 years, his long hours forced him to drop a few classes and switch his student status to part time. Then, in 1966, his country came calling, and Joe was drafted into the U.S. Army. By any measure, Joe's military career was stellar. His awards and mission-critical positions and assignments are too numerous to fully recount, but let me share a few highlights. Joe completed his basic training at Fort Jackson, SC. While there, he earned a recommendation for the Artillery Officer Candidate School at Fort Sill, OK. Once commissioned as a second lieutenant, he was sent to Korea in 1967 and 1968, followed by assignment as an executive officer at Fort Knox, KY, and then 12 months as a battery commander in Vietnam. In the latter part of his career, Joe served as the chief of the Program and Budget Office at the U.S. Army Headquarters, the division artillery commander of the 1st Infantry Division, Mechanized, at Fort Riley, KS; and the Army planner and director for operations and support at Department of the Army Headquarters. As assistant division commander of the 1st Cavalry Division in Fort Hood, TX, he prepared and deployed the division for Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm. He then served as the director of the Army budget and as commanding general of the 1st Infantry Division, Mechanized, out of Fort Riley, KS--the legendary ``Big Red One.'' As is the case in any military career, Joe had to move his family many times. He has a son who is autistic, and each move meant adjustments to new schools, teachers, and therapists. In 1994, Joe decided it was time to retire from the Army so that his family would have a more stable life. After a stint as a USAA board member from 1990 to 1994, Joe joined USAA full time in 1994. He assumed the position of president and CEO in 2007 after serving as the CFO for a number of years. Under his leadership as CEO, not only has USAA seen exponential growth, it was ranked No. 1 for customer service, satisfaction, or advocacy by Bloomberg Businessweek, MSN Money, the American Association of Individual Investors, Forrester Research, and J.D. Power. Committed to advocating for military families, Joe has guided USAA to become a national leader in hiring veterans and military spouses and offering them careers in the private sector. Joe was invited to the White House and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to be recognized for USAA's efforts in this area and demonstrating its commitment by ensuring that veterans and military spouses comprised 30 percent of USAA's new hires in 2013. Beyond those astounding achievements, Joe has also been a dedicated and active member of his community throughout his career. In 2011, Joe was inducted into the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans. Horatio Alger Award recipients are dedicated community leaders who demonstrate individual initiative, a commitment to excellence, and remarkable achievements through honesty, hard work, self-reliance, and perseverance over adversity. Joe has left some big shoes for future leaders of the military, USAA, and the San Antonio community. His is the quintessential American story--one of perseverance, work ethic, and fortitude. But if you ask most people who know Joe well, they will tell you what stands out most about him is that he is simply a great human being. He views himself as not just a leader but part of a greater community--a community of people to which he is dedicated and about which he cares deeply. That is really what sets Joe apart from many other hard-charging leaders, and it is why he will be profoundly missed. I offer my congratulations to Joe Robles on a commendable career, a lifetime of achievements and his ability to maintain humility and compassion through it all.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I won't object, let me use this occasion to say to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee how much I appreciate his leadership and cooperation. Obviously, Senator McConnell, Senator Leahy, and I are all cosponsors of the bigger piece of legislation, the Justice for All Act. I share Senator Leahy's desire--I am sure shared by the Republican leader--that we pass that today. But since we can't do that, and since we are engaged in the art of the possible, this is a good outcome--not just for Debbie Smith, who, as we have all heard, has been a tireless advocate for testing this backlog of rape kits, which holds extraordinary power to both identify the perpetrators in sexual assaults and exonerate people who are not implicated by a DNA test, but as we know, we have had a huge backlog, and the Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act renewal is bipartisan legislation that will provide funds for law enforcement officials to deal with the national scandal, which the rape kit backlog is. Amidst the frustration we all experience in the Senate from time to time, this is good news and this represents progress. So I will agree with the unanimous consent request. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it has been more than a decade since I first came to this Chamber of the United States Senate. It has become unrecognizable--what has traditionally been a forum for thoughtful debate, amendments, and discussion based frequently on different perspectives that we come to based on our experience or the parts of the country we represent. Unfortunately this Chamber has devolved into one where not much gets done, and when there are votes, they are frequently show votes with the election clearly in mind. Look no farther than our September agenda. Amid high unemployment, stagnant wages, widespread frustration over the consequences of ObamaCare, and genuine humanitarian and security crises abroad and here at home, our colleagues who control the agenda in the Chamber decided the most urgent order of business was to amend the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution and gut the First Amendment. As I said at the time, when I went home during the August recess to talk to my constituents, not one of them said: I want you to go back to Congress and I want you to gut the First Amendment guarantee to freedom of speech. This clearly is not at the top of the American people's agenda. Despite all the challenges facing our country, the majority leader, who controls the agenda on the Senate floor, continues to prioritize election year votes--show votes--over serious legislation. Back in March, when our Democratic friends decided to promote their so-called ``fair shot'' agenda, the New York Times noted that the exercise was completely political in nature. The New York Times--hardly hostile to our Democratic friends and their policy agenda--put it: Democrats can see that making new laws is really not the point. Rather they are trying to force Republicans to vote against them. Meanwhile, the majority leader has prevented millions and millions of Americans from having a real voice in this Chamber. Since he became the majority leader, he has blocked legislation more than twice as often as the majority leaders Bill Frist, Tom Daschle, Trent Lott, Bob Dole, George Mitchell, and I should add Robert Byrd, combined. But he hasn't just blocked Republican amendments, not just those in the minority; he has blocked amendments from the majority party--his own party. Since July of last year we have had rollcall votes on only 14 Republican amendments and only 8 Democratic amendments. I have to tell you that if my party was in the majority and we ended up getting less votes than the party in the minority, I would be pretty hot about it, and I would have some explaining to do to my constituents. Indeed, the majority leader has allowed so few amendments that one of his fellow Senate Democrats, the junior Senator from Connecticut, recently told Politico: I got more substance on the floor of the House of Representatives in the minority than I have as a Member of the Senate majority. Our colleagues in the House have sent over scores and scores of bills relating to job creation, taxes, health care, immigration, and other issues only to have Senator Reid declare them dead on arrival. No wonder Congress has a 14-percent approval rating. When people see the dysfunction here--primarily in the Senate, since the House is passing legislation and then it dies here because the majority leader refuses to take it up--it is understandable why they are frustrated, just as we are frustrated. I know it is not just those of us in the minority. Many Democratic colleagues privately expressed their own frustrations about the Senate becoming so dysfunctional. If the majority leader was serious about solving the problems that confront our country, they would not need to look far beyond positive progrowth ideas to address our Nation's most pressing challenges. They would see that Senate Republicans have joined our House colleagues in offering a bevy of thoughtful proposals. First and foremost we have long stressed the need to pass a progrowth fiscally responsible budget. The Senate--under Democratic control--has not passed a budget since 2009. That is malpractice. We should leave the next generation with more economic opportunity, not more debt. Somebody is going to have to pay that money back. Maybe the young folks who are sitting in the front row--the young pages and their children will have to pay the money back. Americans and small businesses across the country budget responsibly every month and so should their government. In addition, we pushed sensible progrowth energy policies that enjoy bipartisan support, such as approving the Keystone XL Pipeline and boosting the U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas. We need energy policies that enhance our energy security, reduce prices, encourage investment, and create jobs at home. We also need a regulatory system that fosters economic growth and prosperity, not one that furthers Washington's overreach. Republicans believe we must continue aggressive oversight of the Obama administration's out-of-control regulatory agenda, which is hitting hard-working Americans and their wages while empowering Federal bureaucrats. Senate Republicans also believe the President's health care law was absolutely the wrong way to expand affordable, accessible, quality health care to more Americans. We believe families and patients should be free to purchase whatever kind of insurance they prefer without having to worry about the government meddling. We believe future reform should guarantee that health care decisions will be made by patients and their doctors, not by Washington. We believe those reforms should make quality health insurance and quality care more accessible for more people. Here is the greatest irony of ObamaCare--instead of making health care more affordable, it made it more expensive, thus limiting access to care. On tax reform, we believe our overriding goal should be to lower tax rates for all taxpayers, broaden the base, and simplify the entire system in order to restore America's global competitiveness. We also favor ending ``too big to fail,'' thereby, ending the implicit government backstop and subsidy currently enjoyed by America's largest banks. There are a number of ways to achieve that goal, but we all agree Dodd-Frank did not solve that problem. Immigration continues to be among the most pressing issues we face, especially given this year's record surge of unaccompanied children coming from Central America and pouring across our southwest border. We understand that one of America's top priorities is to make sure our laws are being enforced and our border is secure. We share that priority and we will keep advocating the necessary reforms, along with other reforms, to fix our broken immigration system. We believe there are a lot of good ideas, and they are not the purview of either political party. In fact, we have been sent by our constituents to work in a bipartisan way to try and solve some of America's most pressing challenges, and we view our intellectual diversity as a sign of strength, but we remain united on the core principles and ideas that define our party. We have had an experiment in big government over the last 6 years and, you know what, it hasn't worked very well. Unemployment rates remain high, the labor participation rate is at a 30-year low, and people have simply given up. The economy should be bounding back rather than knocking along the bottom. We remain committed to tackling our Nation's biggest challenges of promoting greater prosperity for all Americans, and we do that by growing the economy and creating jobs and letting people work hard, as they always have in America, and pursuing their dreams. Proposals such as the ones I mentioned, many of which enjoy bipartisan support--they certainly have in the House of Representatives--will never see the light of day here as long as the majority leader continues to operate this Chamber like an incumbent protection program. The American people sent us to take tough votes and solve problems. Indeed, I don't know anyone who would want to be a Senator if we are not allowed to vote and solve problems. The American people certainly deserve a Senate that operates that way. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the frustration of the Senator from Michigan at the Senate not functioning the way it should. But really her complaint ought to be with the majority leader. Republicans are happy to have an open amendment process. I say to the Senator from Massachusetts that we are not talking about amendments ad infinitum. We are talking about a reasonable amount of amendments. We have been down this lane before. We know that the majority leader rules this body with an iron grip. In the waning days now of this session, there is going to be veritably nothing done, because, of course, that is the way the majority leader has chosen to use his authority. It would make sense if we had an opportunity to offer House legislation. As I said, there are 44 different jobs bills and more than 385 bipartisan pieces of legislation that have passed the House which would be great for us to take up and to work our way through in an orderly and deliberative sort of way. I agree the American people want to see us get things done. But they cannot. We cannot get things done when the majority leader essentially says: You know what. It is my way or the highway. Those of you who are elected from red States, where you are elected by Republicans, you cannot participate in this process. So what is the use of being elected to the Senate? What is the use of States such as Texas having two Senators and not being able to participate or shape the legislative process? That is an unreasonable demand by the majority leader. I know our colleagues on the Democratic side, many of them, are frustrated by that too. I will tell them that if this election in 49 days turns out the way I hope it does, we will have a new Senate where Republicans and Democrats can come to the floor, offer amendments, and get votes as long as they want to get votes on amendments. That used to be the way the Senate operated. That is not the way it operates now. It is really a disservice to the American people. I am saddened by the majority leader's choice to create such a situation in the Senate.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the great talents and credentials that the Senator from Massachusetts brings to the Senate. Unfortunately, whether one is in the majority or in the minority, the Senate has not been able to function for the last 4 years. I have been fortunate to be in the Senate at a time when any Senator who wanted to could come to the floor and offer an amendment and get a vote on that amendment. What to me is completely ironic is even if you are in the majority, you cannot get a vote on an amendment--if you are in the majority. How do you explain that to your constituents back home--that you were rendered completely ineffective because of the way the Senate is being operated under the current majority leader. I want to turn to another topic briefly, and that is the matter of the President's proposed strategy on the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say that the best way to get this piece of legislation resolved on the Senate floor is what used to be called the old-fashioned way. That is where both sides of the aisle get to offer amendments and vote on them. But this is what has happened to the Senate. It has become completely dysfunctional. Frankly, the American people are disgusted with all of us because they see us unable, even when Republicans and Democrats would like to debate legislation and offer solutions, to be able to do so. This is solely within the control of the majority leader, Senator Reid. He has decided it is better to shut things down than to pass legislation which both sides of the aisle would like to see pass. So I would object.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to say to my colleague from Massachusetts I appreciate her highlighting the importance of student debt in the lives of a lot of our young people who are struggling in this stagnant economy. The best thing we can do is to try to get the economy growing again. But the majority leader has chosen not to use the Senate floor for the purpose of legislating. This is the killing field for good bipartisan ideas that have come from the House of Representatives--now more than 380 bills. Unfortunately, the majority leader refuses to take up any of those. We stand ready to work with our colleagues across the aisle on serious legislation through an open and deliberative process that our constituents are demanding. There is a reason why the approval rating of the Congress is 14 percent. People look at Washington, DC, these days and realize it is completely broken and nowhere else is it more broken than in the Senate, where Senator Reid has decided to grind what used to be known as the world's greatest deliberative body to a halt. We will now pass a continuing resolution and adjourn with 47 days left--by the time we do it--until the election. It is really beyond dismay. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify her request, and that it be in order for the minority leader or his designee to offer an amendment, and then for the majority leader or his designee to offer an amendment, and it be in order for the leaders or their designees to continue to offer amendments in an alternating fashion. In other words, we would ask for an open amendment process on the legislation that the Senator is proposing.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) would have voted ``Nay''.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today is the 13th anniversary of 9/11, a day that will be burned in all of our collective memories. I remember two events like this in my lifetime--9/11 is one, and the other is when John F. Kennedy, our President, was assassinated. I remember where I was, what I was doing, and I remember the feeling of horror as the reality of both of those events became more clear. And I bet I am not alone. I bet there are Americans all around the country who remember where they were and what they were doing and what their first thoughts were when those planes hit the World Trade Center in New York, the first and then the second, only to learn there were other planes that were flying with terrorists who had other targets. Of course there was the Pentagon, where many Americans lost their lives, and then there was the plane that was brought down in Pennsylvania that I will talk about a little more. This is one of the defining moments in our Nation's history, a day that proved that our love of country and our fellow Americans will always prevail. I remember the overwhelming sense of unity the American people felt when this tragedy unfolded, and it is entirely right that we did so. Nearly 3000 Americans lost their lives on that day, many in an attempt to save others from harm. As usually happens in moments of tragedy, there were sparks or hints or bright lights of the triumph of the human spirit, people rising to the challenge, showing some of the very best qualities we exhibit as human beings. Today we pause with heavy hearts to remember those we lost and pray to God that He will continue to comfort the families of those who still mourn. Thirteen years may seem like a long time to many of us who did not have the personal tragedy of losing somebody we were close to or a family member, but I am confident that for many who did lose family members and loved ones and friends, that 13 years seems like just yesterday. We also continue to keep our military, our intelligence professionals, our law enforcement officials, first responders, and others who dedicated their lives to that fateful day in our thoughts and prayers because it is they who help keep us safe and who have helped us avoid a similar attack on our homeland over the last 13 years. None of them should ever for a moment doubt our gratitude. I wasn't serving in this body when those attacks came on September 11, but, as I said, I remember exactly where I was. Like other Americans, I was at home in Austin, TX, preparing for work when I heard the terrible news. I remember my wife called my attention to it after the first plane hit the World Trade Center. I didn't actually see it. Of course I saw it time and time again as it was replayed. But I turned to the television set, as my wife called my attention to it just as the second plane hit, and we all wondered what in the world was happening. Then when the towers actually fell and as people jumped out of the towers to avoid, they hoped, their death--but, in fact, they did jump to their death--it was all too vivid and is still today. We should never forget, and that is perhaps the most important lesson we should learn. We should never forget what happened on that terrible day. It is said that those who forget history are condemned to relive it, and I believe that to be true. September 11 is a solemn reminder of what can be taken from us in the blink of an eye and why we must never waiver in our efforts to protect this great Nation and the freedom it embodies. Two simple words were spoken that will be remembered in history as one of the most courageous and powerful phrases ever uttered, and of course I am referring to the words spoken by Todd Beamer aboard Flight 93. When they heard terrorists were in command of the controls of the airplane and perhaps heading to the Nation's Capital, perhaps to attack either the White House or Congress and to knock out large portions of the U.S. Government, Todd Beamer's response, along with other brave patriots, was ``Let's roll.'' They then attempted to overpower the terrorists in the cockpit. Those brave passengers on that flight did more than just save the lives of innocent Americans here in the Nation's Capital; absent their sacrifice, it is likely that flight would have claimed even more lives than just those on board. The passengers on Flight 93, along with every American who died 13 years ago on September 11, were men and women with jobs, with families, and with dreams. I am sure that, like all of us, many of them made promises to their loved ones before they boarded that plane or left for work that day--promises to be home in time for dinner, to make a child's soccer game or birthday party. Some promises don't come cheap. Others cost us absolutely nothing. Others require that we risk everything we have and everything we are, even our very lives, to fulfill those promises. Their acts of courage offer us comfort even today and inspire every American as we have rebuilt from that terrible day 13 years ago. The acts of courage displayed on 9/11 mark their last promise in a sense--a promise carried on to the Nation, to their children and other loved ones left behind; a promise that says the story of freedom will not end in the vile acts of evil men. It will endure and it will not be destroyed. Early this morning I had the privilege of joining my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee in approving an important piece of legislation called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which will now be eligible for movement across the floor. It is appropriate that we pass that piece of legislation on the anniversary of 9/11. By amending the current law to hold foreign sponsors of terrorism potentially liable in U.S. courts for acts that injure or kill Americans, this bill will allow the families of the victims of the attacks on 9/11 and others to proceed to court against those responsible for those horrific attacks that took place 13 years ago. Part of the attack against international terrorism has to be to go against the money that finances it, and this will provide another tool for those families to attack those who fund and finance international terrorism. This bill, not surprisingly, is strongly supported by the 9/11 family victims, and it would allow their litigation to proceed on its merits. I am hopeful it will receive the prompt consideration here on the Senate floor that it deserves. Americans have always been deeply concerned about the kind of country and the kind of world we leave our children. As parents, that is what keeps us going some days. Of course, grandparents have other reasons to keep going and to keep fighting for a better world. This remains true both abroad and here at home in our own communities and in our schools and at work. We must continue to push on undeterred, always confident in the pursuit of our ultimate goal: a just, free, and peaceful world not just for ourselves but for our allies and for future generations. Part of that mission involves stopping evil at its source, running it down, and eliminating it for good because we learned another thing on 9/11: We can either take the fight to the source of the evil where it exists or we can defend here on the homeland. Speaking for myself and I am sure others, I want to go fight it at its source and not just defend on the homeland. The minions of terror have shown their capacity for inhumanity. We have seen recent reminders of that with the beheading of two American journalists by ISIS. We must never underestimate the capacity and desire of these evil people to do so again and again. We have recently been reminded of this, and last night the President spoke to the Nation's commitment to deal with this sort of horrific activity and dangerous and extreme ideology. As we adapt to new threats and new challenges, Americans must maintain a sense of vigilance, a sense of purpose, and a sense of moral clarity. We must never forget why we fight, and we must always make sure that our brave men and women in uniform have what they need in order to take the fight to our Nation's enemies. The greatest honor we can give to those we lost is to live our lives worthy of their sacrifice, relish the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, and ensure the promise that those freedoms shall not perish for future generations. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, we all are anticipating the President's speech tonight in which hopefully he will make the case for why it is in America's national security interest to eliminate the ISIS or ISIL threat from the Islamic State that is forming a new caliphate in what used to be called Iraq and Syria and which hopefully will be restored. When the President first campaigned for President in 2008, I know he did not promote himself as a future war President--just the opposite. He told supporters that on his first day in office he would give U.S. military forces in Iraq a new mission, which was ending the war. But just because one side of a war quits does not mean the war ends. I think now we found that to be painfully obvious. When the President was running for reelection, time and time again he boasted that he upheld that 2008 campaign promise and brought the Iraq war to a close. He further assured us that the tide of war was receding. I am sure if he had a chance he would probably take back those words because history has disproved those very arguments. As recently as mid-June, even after the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria had conquered the second largest Iraqi city, the city of Mosul, a national security spokeswoman was still repeating the White House talking points that are 3 years old, telling the Wall Street Journal that President Obama promised to responsibly end the war in Iraq and he did. Of course, America's complete withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 did not end the war, as I suggested a moment ago. It just ended the U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq until now. But it did make the resurgence of war much more likely. It was, in hindsight, a tragic mistake. We were the glue that held Iraq together, but once we left and pulled the plug without--because we did not negotiate a status of forces agreement or a bilateral security agreement, the old sectarian strife that is perhaps centuries or more old came back to the forefront. Iran continued its aggression in Iraq, as it had been doing all the time we were there, as well as their support for Bashar al- Assad and his support for Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Meanwhile, in Libya--remember, NATO went to war in Libya as well, primarily using U.S. assets and money. Our complete and utter neglect of Libya following the neglect of Muammar Qadhafi did not end that war either; it merely created a security vacuum that was quickly filled by radical militias and terrorist groups with ties to Al Qaeda. If we learned anything from 9/11--and I just returned from a Congressional Gold Medal service in the Capitol--if we learned anything 13 years ago, it is that vacuums get filled. If we do not fill the vacuum with constructive self-governance and respect for the rule of law and individual human worth and dignity, then that vacuum will be filled by terrorists and others who reject all of those fundamental values of our country. We did not learn it. We did not learn the lesson. We did not learn it in Libya. We did not learn it in Iraq. Eleven months after Qadhafi's death and less than a week after President Obama told the Democratic National Convention that Al Qaeda was on the path to defeat, Al Qaeda-linked terrorists killed four Americans in Benghazi, including our U.S. Ambassador--less than a week. I mention all this recent history because it all comes back to the issue of credibility, not only of our Commander in Chief in the United States, but of the American people. It comes down to our Nation's credibility around the world. Will we be trusted by our friends and allies? Will we be feared by our would-be adversaries, the bullies, the tyrants, the thugs, and the terrorists who will take advantage of the vacuum left once America withdraws? From the Middle East to the Far East, from Baghdad to Beijing, to Mosul, to Moscow, this administration has done tremendous damage to America's credibility. America is the one indispensable nation in the world. We may not like that sometimes; it may seem like too big a responsibility, but no one else can fill a void left when America retreats. Ronald Reagan understood that. That is why he stood for what he called peace through strength, and you know it works. But when the President announced a withdrawal date from Afghanistan in the very same speech in which he announced a U.S. troop surge, he damaged America's credibility again. Is that any way to encourage people to support the United States and NATO's mission in Afghanistan, to tell them: Well, we are going to surge troops today, but we are going to be gone tomorrow, so you better make your bets in terms of your long-term interest--which, in Afghanistan, means they are betting with America's adversaries. Of course, as we saw in Iraq, tragically--the investment the United States made in terms of blood and treasure, which was squandered in Iraq--he created another prospect of the squandering of America's blood and treasure in Afghanistan unless we have learned the lesson of Iraq. Then there is Syria. The President has given speech after speech. The Department of State, Hillary Clinton, others, the national security advisors, have said it is American policy that there be regime change in Syria, that Bashar al-Assad has to go. But then nothing happened--well, I take that back. Something did happen; 200,000 civilians have died in Syria as a result of that civil war. The President came to Congress to ask for authority to conduct air strikes in Syria, but then when he couldn't explain what his strategy was, he got a lifeline from Vladimir Putin. Putin said: We will help you get rid of those chemical weapons in Syria. And the President retreated from that red line and nothing seemed to happen. In addition to those 200,000 Syrian civilians killed since the civil war started, we have seen millions of Syrians displaced in refugee camps in Turkey, in Lebanon, in Jordan. Then there is Ukraine. When the President promised to help Ukraine defeat Russian aggression, and to help it maintain its full territorial integrity and sovereignty, he subsequently refused to give the Ukrainians even modest defensive weapons. I think we sent them MREs, meals ready to eat. We sent them, maybe, some medical supplies which are important. But they needed not MREs but weapons to defeat Russian aggression, to raise the cost to Putin and his regime in their continued invasion of Ukraine and Crimea. Then the President decided: Well, we are just going to use economic sanctions against Putin. Putin could care less about the economic sanctions. Again, as to the extent to which our allies and friends can rely on us when they get in trouble, they begin to doubt our credibility. The bullies, tyrants, and terrorists lick their lips and take full advantage of the situation. We have seen that time and time again. Then there was when the President--I bet this is another couple of words he wished he could take back in light of subsequent events-- dismissed the Islamic State terrorists as the JV team. Even though they were gaining a stranglehold over eastern Syria and western Iraq, again the President--by underestimating a threat, a threat I am sure he will confront head on tonight--undermined America's credibility. Make no mistake. America's credibility does matter. And when America loses credibility, the world becomes a much more dangerous place. That is exactly what has happened over the past several years. I would say that despite the criticism I have made of the President's policy, I believe he has an opportunity tonight, starting tonight, to reverse some of that damage. Beginning with this speech on U.S. policy in Iraq and Syria, he has an opportunity to reverse the impression that he is aloof and detached from the ongoing chaos. He has the opportunity to lay out a clear strategy for destroying perhaps the richest, most well-armed terrorist group on the planet. He has an opportunity to describe how our strategy might utilize Syria's more moderate anti- Assad rebel groups and describe how he plans to work with Congress on implementing that strategy. He has an opportunity to sell the American people on his strategy. Make no doubt about it. While the President thinks he can go this alone and he doesn't need to come to Congress for additional authorization, he does need and we do need the support of the American people. There are practical reasons why the President should come to Congress. Because if he makes the case to a bipartisan Congress and Congress issues the authorization for him to act because we actually believe he has a strategy that can work, then I think the American people will be much more inclined to support that strategy. Tonight I hope he will speak not only to Congress, he will speak to the American people candidly about the threat and about our military goals and how he intends to achieve those goals by the strategy he lays out. He has an opportunity to explain the evolving nature of the terrorist threat and also explain what he is going to do and what we can do together to defend U.S. interests and to keep America safe. Yesterday the Washington Post-ABC News poll revealed some very important data with regard to the American people's understanding of the threat and their support for what the President is talking about doing. In some ways it seems as if the American people were way ahead of their leadership in Congress and in the White House. From the Washington Post-ABC poll I will read three questions. No. 1: As you may know, a group of Sunni insurgents called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, also known as ISIS, has taken control of parts of Iraq and Syria. How much, if at all, do you see ISIS as a threat to the vital interests of the United States? Ninety-one percent of the respondents responded said they see it as a serious threat to the vital interests of the United States. No. 2: Do you support or oppose U.S. air strikes against the Sunni insurgents in Iraq? Seventy-one percent support. No. 3: Do you support or oppose expanding U.S. air strikes against the Sunni insurgents into Syria? Sixty-five percent support. So we can see from the first question people recognize ISIS as a threat. Fewer support kinetic strikes against the insurgents in Iraq and Syria, but still a two-thirds majority do. My point is, while the President of the United States may take what I think is a very generous view of his authority as Commander in Chief and under the Constitution to do this without congressional authorization, I think it is a terrible mistake for him to do so for two reasons, one I just mentioned, which is he needs and we need the support of the American people before we send any American into harm's way to deal with this threat. We need to have a robust debate and there needs to be bipartisan support for this effort in order for the American people then to see we are united and thus to unite them in common cause against this terrible threat. Then the last reason is practical too. The President wants, it is reported, $5 billion. We have already burned up about $\1/2\ billion with air strikes in Iraq. War is expensive, and if the President says this is going to go on for another 3 years, which is one estimate I saw, he needs to come to Congress in order to get the appropriations, to get the money, in order to carry this out. If he thinks he can just come and request $5 billion and Congress is going to rubberstamp that or write him a blank check without any strategy, I think he is terribly mistaken. From what we have seen, since our Nation has been at war in Afghanistan and Iraq for these many years, 13 years in Afghanistan, we know war is expensive and $5 billion is a very minimal downpayment on what it will cost the American taxpayer to conduct this effort. The President may have a very narrow view of his responsibility to come to Congress and get authority, but there are very practical reasons why he should, as I said--both in terms of gaining the support of the American people for this effort before he sends more Americans into harm's way, and the fact that under the Constitution the Executive, the President, can't appropriate one penny. That is going to have to come from Congress. One party can't do this. Heaven forbid our national security would break down along purely partisan lines. But if the President doesn't have a plan and if he doesn't lay it out tonight, it is hard to see how he will get either the support of Congress, whether it is official or not, or of the American people. It is hard to see where this is going to go if he thinks he can fund this on the cheap when, in fact, by his own estimate and others' it is going to take 3 years or more to defeat ISIS. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I can't tell you how disappointed I am that the majority leader has continued to persist in blocking votes on more than 300 different pieces of bipartisan legislation that have passed the House of Representatives and that he refuses to bring up in the Senate. Rather than work together on a bipartisan basis to try to get the economy moving and get Americans back to work, we have these focus group, poll-tested show votes. The distinguished Senator from Michigan just admitted that equal pay for equal work is already the law of the land and then said we need to vote on it again. Well, it should be renamed ``The Trial Lawyer Relief Act'' because that is what it is. It is going to benefit the trial lawyers by encouraging litigation and will do nothing to make sure there is equal pay for equal work. We all agree that is and should be the law of the land, but encouraging legislation such as lawsuits against small businesses would do nothing to create jobs and grow the economy. There is a reason why the congressional approval rating is at 14 percent. The distinguished senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain--in a display of what I guess could be called gallows humor--said we are down to paid staff and blood relatives. Those are the only ones who still approve of what Congress is doing, and it is easy to understand why. We just came back off of a recess where we had a chance to go back home and talk to our constituents. More importantly than talk to them, we had a chance to listen to them and hear what is on their minds. What are their concerns? What are their hopes? What are their dreams? What are they worried about? I guarantee that none of my constituents suggested we need to repeal the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That is the particular legislation that is on the floor today. That is the priority of the Democratic majority leader. It is a show vote to try to deny people an equal opportunity to participate in the political process--to shut them out if you disagree with them and silence them. Tell them to sit down, be quiet, we are in charge and in control. I cannot tell you how disappointed I am that it seems as though it is all politics all the time. Every perceived or real problem that our Democratic friends seem to identify--what is their solution? It is more government. The most feared words in the English language where I come from are ``I'm from the Federal Government and I'm here to help.'' We had an experiment over the last 5\1/2\ years since President Obama was elected and the electorate gave the Democratic Party control of both the House and Senate. We have had a scientific experiment in the size and role of government and the results are in, and they are pretty pathetic. Unemployment is still unacceptably high. The labor participation rate, which is the percentage of people actually participating in the workforce, is at a 30-year low. People have given up looking for work, which is a great human tragedy. Then there is the President's approval rating. He is doing better than Congress, I will give him that, but it is down around 40 percent. Here is the troubling thing--and this is not a partisan comment. As an American, I worry when the Commander in Chief has the sort of poll numbers we are talking about. There was a poll reported by the Washington Post and ABC News on September 9. The poll showed that Americans say, by 52 percent to 42 percent, that President Obama has been more of a failure than a success as President of the United States. That is terrible. But it demonstrates his refusal to engage with Congress on a bipartisan basis to do the country's work. It also reflects the mistakes he has made when it comes to leadership around the world. President Obama wanted his second term to be about nation building here at home rather than conflicts and crises abroad. But, as we all know by now, the world is not cooperating. Even worse, the President is not leading. Instead, he has embraced a dangerously reactive foreign policy marked by empty rhetoric and wishful thinking, and the results are now plain to see. When we look at the Middle East, we see a massive terrorist enclave spanning western Iraq and eastern Syria. The border between Syria and Iraq is gone. It is the site of a new caliphate. They are the Islamic radicals who were deemed so bad that Al Qaeda didn't want to have anything to do with them--ISIS. They have created what they believe is an Islamic state or caliphate, where Shari'a law will rule and women will have virtually no rights and people will have no liberty or freedom. We have seen American journalists being decapitated on video. We see a brutal Syrian civil war in which about 200,000 civilians have been killed--200,000 human beings are dead as a result of a Syrian civil war--and millions more Syrians have been displaced internally within this country or else living in refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. We see a failed state in Libya. We see a terrorist-sponsoring Iranian theocracy that continues to pursue a nuclear weapon, and we see a violent Iranian axis stretching from Tehran to Damascus to Beirut and Gaza. Meanwhile, let's not forget about Eastern Europe. We see an aggressive, autocratic gangster state conducting a cross-border invasion of democratic neighbors and taking sovereign territory by force in a manner not seen on the European continent since World War II. A few weeks ago the President announced that Western sanctions against Russia were working as intended. Yet, in late August a large number of Russian troops began launching major incursions into Eastern and Southern Ukraine in the hopes of seizing even more territory. They already have Crimea; that is yesterday's news. Now they are making further gains in Eastern and Southern Ukraine. One Ukrainian official called it a full-scale invasion. It doesn't sound to me as though the sanctions that were issued by the United States are working as intended as the President has said. Our existing sanctions are inadequate. They are not working as intended. Vladimir Putin is not deterred by economic sanctions. In fact, according to one Italian newspaper, Putin recently told the President of the European Commission that if Russia wanted to, it could take Kiev in 2 weeks. I am sure Mr. Putin is OK if it takes a little bit longer, just as long as he gets the territory he needs to try to restore the Russian empire to his former visions of glory. White House officials famously describe the President's foreign policy as ``don't do stupid stuff.'' That is one for the history textbooks. That is the sort of policy our students need to study in high school: Don't do stupid stuff. Come on. Time and time again in country after country on issue after issue, this administration has, by its inaction and its ambivalence, undermined America's partners, adversaries are emboldened, and it has weakened American credibility. Let's start with the Middle East. In Libya, President Obama launched a war against Moammar Qadhafi in Libya and then he did virtually nothing to help stabilize the country after Qadhafi's fall. That neglect ultimately led to the tragic death of four Americans in Benghazi in September 2012. It also led to the emergence of terrorist havens. What do they look for other than a power vacuum that they can fill where they can seek sanctuary and launch attacks in the region or against other adversaries? This has led to Libya's collapse as a functioning state. It is a failed state. It has also enabled jihadist groups in Mali and Africa until they were driven out by the French. Then there is Syria. Remember when the President said Bashir Assad needs to step down? He then did virtually nothing to help see that happen. He did nothing to arm the moderate rebel forces opposing Assad in the Syrian civil war. The irony is that U.S. officials had a plan to support those rebels, and they recommended it to the President in the summer of 2012 a plan proposed by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-CIA Director David Petraeus, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Dempsey. They recommended a plan to deal with Assad and to facilitate the regime change President Obama called for. What did the President do? He rejected it, even though his stated policy in Syria since August 2011 has been regime change. It has become commonplace to say that the United States has no good options in Syria. But President Obama's chronic passivity has helped the jihadists. I know that is not his intention, but it has helped the result. It has helped embolden the Iranians, and it has made the Syrian war even more dangerous for the United States and the United States' interests. Then there is Iraq. President Obama failed to secure a new status of forces or bilateral security agreement that would have protected American forces that served on a transitional basis in Iraq after the conclusion of the Iraq war. We kept troops in Japan and Germany after World War II, and indeed the Americans were the only glue capable of holding the country of Iraq together and avoiding the sort of sectarian civil war we have seen ensue. But his complete withdrawal of U.S. forces in 2011 was a huge gift to Iraq's Shiite militias, their Iranian patrons, and the Sunni terrorists of Al Qaeda who would later form the so-called Islamic State or ISIS or ISIL, as they are now called. I have to tell my colleagues, as I reflect on the American casualties in Ramadi, in Fallujah--our marines, our brave American soldiers, men and women, their loss of life or injuries incurred in liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein and to see all of that forfeited by the President's unwillingness to secure a bilateral security agreement and leave a transitional, small footprint force there to help the Iraqis transition to self government and democracy--it breaks my heart. I don't know how we explain that to someone who lost a loved one in Ramadi or Fallujah or anywhere else in the Iraq war. According to the Wall Street Journal, at least 8 million Syrians and Iraqis live under full or partial Islamic State control. Eight million Syrians and Iraqis are living under the rule of medieval barbarians who not only decapitated two American captives but have accumulated a frightening amount of territory and wealth. They control a lot of the natural resources, the oil wells, in Iraq now because we have allowed them to capture it, and now that is the source of revenue for them to continue their terror. They have accumulated a frightening amount of territory and wealth by robbing, raping, extorting, and murdering innocent civilians. By allowing the Islamic State to take over such a large part of Iraq and Syrian territory, President Obama has neglected one of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We remember the 9/11 Commission. It was a bipartisan commission set up after the tragedy of 9/11 to ask: How do we keep this from ever happening again? One of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission is that the U.S. Government identify and prioritize actual or potential terrorist sanctuaries; in other words, safe havens. Instead, the President has stood by and watched like a spectator while the Islamic State, over the course of many months, carved out its own safe haven, right in the heart of the Middle East. I am grateful to the President that he now has made a pledge to destroy ISIS. I believe this is not a threat that can be managed; I think it needs to be eliminated. So I congratulate the President for having evolved to this point where he understands the nature of the threat to American interests and to the American people, and I hope he is serious about doing that. But as one person recently noted, the Obama administration has persuaded just about every leadership cadre in the Middle East that the United States can be safely ignored when its principals make threats or promises. Remember the red line in Syria with chemical weapons. Well, the red line was crossed, and there were virtually no consequences associated with it. What is the lesson we learn? I guess I can get away with it and I am going to keep on coming--such as Vladimir Putin in Crimea and Ukraine. Speaking of threats and promises, President Obama has repeatedly threatened Russia with serious consequences over its invasion of Ukraine, and he has repeatedly promised to help the Ukrainian people uphold their sovereignty. Yet he continues to stubbornly refuse to provide the very arms to the Ukrainian patriots needed in order to deter and deflect and defeat Russian aggression. What are we giving them? Our good wishes? Sending them some food and medical supplies? That is fine as far as it goes. But without the actual weapons and the training they need in order to defeat Russian aggression and to raise the cost for Vladimir Putin, he is not going to stop. Yet the President's threats haven't been reinforced with the kind of action necessary to change Moscow's calculations, and his promises to the government of Kiev now look rather empty. The tragedy is it seems as though there is one world crisis after another, and we have long since forgotten about Libya, Syria, and the red lines and the chemical weapons there. They seem like a vague and distant memory because now we are focused on ISIS. But they are all part of the same problem. There is a very real danger in Ukraine that last week's cease-fire will only solidify Russia's recent territorial gains and legitimize its ongoing invasion and further embolden Vladimir Putin to seize even more Ukrainian territory or the territory of another Eastern European country when the time seems right. Amidst all of this upheaval, all of this violence, all of these challenges, all of these threats to U.S. interests and allies, the President seems disturbingly aloof. Here is what he said about the ongoing global turmoil at a recent fundraising event on August 29. This was reported in the press. He said: The world has always been messy. In part, we are just noticing it now because of social media and our capacity to see in intimate detail the hardships that people are going through. But make no mistake about it. The Middle East has not always been consumed by the type of violence and chaos we are seeing today, and European countries have not always been facing cross-border invasions such as that posed by Russia today. The world needs strong American leadership. Ronald Reagan was right. We have a safer, more peaceful world when America is strong and does not create the safe havens for terrorists or by our timidity or our rhetoric that is not followed up on by actions that create the impression that people can get away with it. It just encourages the thugs, the dictators, and the terrorists. The President's refusal to accept any real responsibility for the consequences of his foreign policy is troubling enough, but what is even more troubling is he doesn't seem to fully grasp the magnitude of the threats and challenges that America is now dealing with. If he thinks this is all about social media and people being aware of things that were happening before but they weren't aware of before, I hope he will think again. Indeed, his overall record is looking more and more like a case study in the perils of weaknesses, naivete, and indecision. I can only hope that recent events will force him to change course. That could start by his coming to Congress with a strategy to eliminate ISIS, to eliminate this threat. I believe there would be bipartisan support for a strategy the President would present that has a reasonable chance of success. But just to have open-ended air strikes and maybe just a strategy comprising hopes and dreams but not one with the likelihood of working is not good enough. But if he came to us and worked with Congress, I think it would serve multiple purposes. First, it would comply with the Constitution and the laws of the United States. That is important. Second, by engaging in bipartisan support in Congress, he would build support necessarily for this policy among the American people. I don't believe Americans should ever go to war without the support of the American people. We see what happens when that support fades and crumbles, and it is not good. The third reason he ought to come to Congress is I read in some of the news clips today he is going to come and ask us for $5 billion to fight ISIS. Well, the President--who is famous for saying, I am going to go it alone; I have a pen and a phone--can't go it alone when it comes to appropriating money. He needs Congress to appropriate that money. And Congress should not appropriate money without a strategy that has a reasonable likelihood of working or without an explanation of how this strategy is going to protect America and Americans' interests. So in his remarks on U.S. policy toward the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria tomorrow night when he makes this nationwide address, I urge the President to go beyond the rhetoric and offer a clear explanation of our military objectives and our strategic objectives. I urge him to explain how and why the Islamic State poses a dangerous threat to U.S. national security interests, which I believe it does and I believe he thinks it does. So I hope he will explain it to the American people so they can understand it. I urge him to explain how U.S. allies and partners can help support America's mission, because we can't and should not do it alone. Indeed, we do need that coalition, particularly of people in the region who have the most direct interest and stake in the outcome. We need them to come to the table and help too. Finally, I urge him to explain what his strategy is and how U.S. operations in Iraq and Syria fit within the broader role on radical Islamic terrorism. If the President gave such a speech--and I hope he does--I hope it is followed with true negotiations and deliberations and consultation with Congress. I know Minority Leader Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid and the Republican leader of the Senate, Senator McConnell, and Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy are visiting with the President perhaps as I speak. Maybe that is just the beginning of the kind of consultation that should take place. But I hope it is followed on by true collaboration and consultation with all Members of Congress so that we as Americans can come together and do what is in our national interests. But we can't do it without leadership, and we don't do it without a strategy to accomplish that goal. I think in the process the President could inject some much needed clarity and direction into a foreign policy that has become hopelessly muddled and aimless. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Newspapers are trying to persuade voters all the time to elect a given candidate because they endorse those candidates. I remember when I ran for my first public office as a district judge in Bexar County, San Antonio, TX, one of the most important things I sought was the endorsement of the editorial board of the local newspaper. I knew that even if nobody knew anything else about me, if the newspaper editorial board thought I was a credible candidate, that might help in my election. Neither Federal nor State lawmakers should have the power to decide what type of political speech is permissible. Free speech is free speech. The solution to speech is more speech, not less speech. For 225 years the First Amendment has served as the guarantor of American democracy. It was designed to protect all speech, not just speech we happen to agree with or that supports our particular point of view. A recent Supreme Court decision put it this way: ``There is no more basic right to our democracy than the right to participate in electing political leaders.'' Unfortunately, this amendment would undermine that right, and it would roll back perhaps the most elemental freedom of our founding document by creating a system in which vital, indispensable liberty would be contingent on the ever-shifting tides of partisan politics. These efforts should not only be not supported, they should be repudiated firmly, loudly, and unapologetically, nothing less than the very bedrock of American democracy is at stake. As I close, I wish to add that the Founders wisely put the process by which the Constitution can be amended in our Constitution. Two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate must vote for a constitutional resolution and then it goes to the States where three- quarters of the States must ratify this constitutional amendment. I can tell you that there is no doubt in my mind that this would ever happen with this amendment. Why is the majority leader bringing this up now, less than 60 days before the midterm elections? Perhaps it is to motivate his own political base in the hope that will mitigate some of the losses in the November 4 election. But it certainly cannot be without any hope or pipedream that it would ever become the law of the land, and for the reasons I have stated it should not. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am glad I got to catch a few of the tail-end remarks of my colleague from Illinois. I didn't realize what this debate was truly all about, but he made that clear. This is all about public financing of elections, according to him, because anybody contributing any of their hard-earned money to support a candidate whom they happen to believe in or someone espousing or advocating for the principles they believe in--there is something inherently wrong with that according to the distinguished majority whip, the Senator from Illinois, because to him the only answer is let's take your money and use that to finance an election perhaps to benefit a candidate who doesn't agree with anything you believe in. Is that what this is all about, public financing of elections? He said something else I don't think I ever heard anybody have the audacity to say before. He said voter fraud doesn't exist. I am sure in Chicago they have had a few instances of voter fraud. We have unfortunately had some in Texas, some that resulted in the nomination of Lyndon Johnson to be Democratic nominee for President of the United States in box 13 in Duvall County, TX, and there have been a number of other instances investigated and found cases of voter fraud that have been found to exist. What is the problem with issuing or requiring somebody to have a photo ID to vote? In Texas to get a voter ID, for which the Attorney General has sued the State of Texas, saying somehow it is discriminatory to require somebody to have a voter ID to prove they are who they say they are so they can then cast their vote, even though it takes a photo ID to get into the Department of Justice--you cannot go see Eric Holder or anybody at the Department of Justice unless you have a photo ID. Oh, by the way, you cannot buy tobacco products, you cannot buy alcohol, you cannot fly on an airplane without a photo ID, and if for some reason you don't have one in the State of Texas, well, you get one for free. How does that possibly burden the right to vote? It is no surprise that 70 percent of the respondents in most of the polling I have seen--Independents, Democrats, and Republicans alike-- say they think voter ID is a good idea, because what does it do? It protects the integrity of the ballots for people who are qualified to vote and doesn't permit illegal votes to dilute those votes. We spent the last several weeks back home meeting with our constituents. I know some people like to call it recess. I know it doesn't feel like recess, at least not in the elementary school sense of the word, because most of the time this is a period during which we get to travel our States and interact with our constituents and do something we need to do more of, which is to listen to what they have to say and what their concerns are, and I did that in Texas. My constituents did not say the most important thing we can do is pass a constitutional amendment gutting the First Amendment, the right to free speech. That didn't come up one time. What did come up were their concerns about the economy, about the access to health care, about immigration, about the challenges imposed by radical Islamic terrorists and the Russian strongman Vladimir Putin. All of those came up. Not a single time did my constituents say: We want you to go back to Washington, DC, and vote to gut the First Amendment right to free speech. At this time of high unemployment and stagnant wages, with the labor participation rate at historic lows-- that is, the percentage of people actually in the workforce looking for jobs is at a historic low--and millions of Americans concerned about losing their health insurance or facing higher deductibles or premiums, with a crisis on the southwest border which has not gone away with this wave of unaccompanied minor children coming across from Central America, with terrorists on the march in the Middle East, with Russian military forces continuing a full-blown invasion of Ukraine, despite all that, the majority leader in his wisdom has decided to bring up this amendment because he thinks the most urgent order of business is to replace the current First Amendment which has stood the test of time for lo all these many years since our country's founding and replace it with one that empowers incumbent politicians to control who has access to the resources in order to get their message out. Now everyone is entitled to their priorities, but it is painfully clear the majority leader's priorities have everything to do with November 4, the coming midterm elections, so it is all politics all the time, no matter what. I am embarrassed, frankly, to confront my constituents when they say: What are you going to be doing when you return to Washington, DC? Are you going to be dealing with jobs or the energy sector--which is a very bright spot in our economy--or what are we going to do to make sure the millennials--the young adults--can actually find jobs so they can pay down their college loans and so they can get to work? What are you going to do to keep the promises the President made on health care; that if you like what you have you can keep it, the premiums for a family of four are going to go down by $2,500, and you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor--what are you going to do to make sure those promises are kept? Instead of dealing with all of those very important issues, it is embarrassing for me to tell my constituents that, look, the majority leader is the one who controls the agenda in this Senate. He is the traffic cop, and an individual Senator--and certainly not one in the minority--doesn't have any ability to control the agenda of the U.S. Senate. So this is all Senator Reid's choice as the majority leader, and he claims this proposed constitutional amendment is all about getting so- called dark money out of the political system. In reality, if that was all this was about, we might have a good debate and a vote. But in reality what he is concerned about is opposition--political support that is going to make it more likely that Republicans regain the majority of the Senate and Democrats become a member of the minority. That is what is motivating this vote. In reality what this amendment would do would be to undermine some of our most cherished, most fundamental, and most important liberties. If this proposed amendment ever becomes law, State and Federal lawmakers would suddenly have vast new powers to regulate or even criminalize political speech. So to state the blindingly obvious, the Founding Fathers proposed and readopted the First Amendment precisely because they saw how dangerous it was to let politicians restrict the exercise of free speech. The Founders understood that without the First Amendment we could end up with a never-ending cycle of elected officials shrinking the boundaries of permissible speech. A political system such as that would be totally incompatible with the principles and values of a free society. Yet that is exactly the type of political system we would have if this constitutional amendment being proposed ever were to take effect. I heard the majority whip saying this isn't about political speech, this is just about the money, but that argument quickly falls apart. For starters, my colleagues amendment would allow Congress to restrict freedom of assembly and freedom of petition as well, both of which are essential to safeguarding political speech. While the amendment might not give Congress the power to curtail freedom of the press per se, it would give Congress the power to curtail political speech by individuals and activists, which begs the question: Why should the political speech of newspapers and magazines be any different from the political speech of you and me? Why should theirs be carved out and unrestricted in terms of the financial resources that could advance those points of view in newspapers and magazines? Yet our ability to communicate about the things we care about the most would be restricted by limiting the amount of money we could spend to advocate those points of view. After all, when newspapers publish editorials about public policy, they are trying to persuade politicians and other elected officials to adopt a given position, and that is an important part of our system. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).