John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Indiana for his remarks about our military service men and women and our obligation to provide them the care they have earned for their service. I look forward to voting, along with everyone in this Chamber, on this bipartisan legislation this afternoon, which represents the first step--not the last step but the first step--toward the systemic failures that have been disclosed as a result of the comprehensive VA audit. I come to the floor to speak again about a growing humanitarian crisis in South Texas, the State I represent, where authorities are struggling with waves of unaccompanied minors--children--coming through Mexico into the United States. The numbers are pretty staggering. So far 47,000 minors have been detained at the southwestern border since October. The Department of Homeland Security and Border Patrol estimate that there could be as many as 60,000 unaccompanied minors, mostly from Central America. If we look at the map from Guatemala City to McAllen, TX, it is roughly 1,200 miles. Unfortunately, this influx is a direct consequence of the perception that this administration will not enforce our immigration laws. Interviews with more than 200 of the migrants who comprise some of these individuals confirm their impression, which is reinforced by Central American news media outlets--primarily newspapers--that if children can get to the United States, they will have a free ticket and be able to stay. We had a chance to question and discuss this humanitarian crisis with Secretary Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security, this morning before the Judiciary Committee, and to his credit, he has taken an all- hands-on-deck attitude, but the truth is the Federal Government's resources are overwhelmed by this humanitarian crisis. By creating a powerful incentive for people to come to the United States illegally, we have effectively encouraged children and their parents to make a treacherous and threatening journey from Central America, one of the most dangerous parts of the world today, through Mexico--large swaths of Mexico are controlled by drug cartels--and then all the way into Texas. Secretary Johnson conceded this morning that somehow we are schizophrenic about this issue. When we look at the victims of human trafficking and other people, we all agree we need to do more on a bipartisan basis to deal with this scourge of human trafficking, but the fact is that the transnational criminal organizations--trafficking people for economic reasons, such as for sex, drugs, and weapons--will do anything for money. They are criminals, and that is what they do. Unfortunately, we have a lot of innocent children who are now being swept up in this humanitarian crisis, as I said, committed by their parents to take this trek across Mexico into the United States. We have no idea how many children start that journey and how many simply drop off along the way because they have been kidnapped, injured, murdered or perhaps they just become ill as a result of exposure and die during this long trek. It is a journey that often begins in cities, towns, and villages scattered throughout Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The first major checkpoint is the Mexican border with Guatemala. It is about 500 miles long. Before arriving there, many families and children pass through regions of northern Guatemala that are controlled by the Zetas cartel, one of the most violent criminal organizations in the world. When they reach Mexico, many illegal immigrants jump onto a network of freight trains known by the ominous nickname ``The Beast.'' I encourage anyone who is listening to me to go online and Google or Bing or use some other search engine and type in ``The Beast'' and read some of the horrific stories about transportation from southern Mexico up to northern Mexico on The Beast. NPR, National Public Radio, repeatedly reported The Beast train is ``just as likely to spit them out as it is to shepherd them safely to the border.'' Indeed, people riding on The Beast are frequently robbed, raped or killed by the drug traffickers and gang members who control the smuggling corridors. This is organized criminal activity by transnational criminal organizations. As one former Beast passenger told CNN, ``almost everyone gets assaulted.'' If there is anybody who thinks illegal immigration and trafficking involves some sort of benign experience of traveling from a country where people don't have an opportunity to a country where people do have an opportunity, that part is true, but what they don't tell you is the horrific, life-threatening, and sometimes life-destroying experience of getting to the United States because people are committing themselves to the tender mercies of some of the most violent criminal organizations on the planet. In recent years, Mexican authorities have discovered mass graves containing the bodies of Central American migrants--those who did not make it to our southern border. Among those who are not murdered by the cartels, many passengers on The Beast simply fall off the train. For example, they try to jump on it while it is moving. If they are lucky, they might just end up with a few broken bones, but if they are not lucky, they might end up losing a limb or being crushed to death underneath its wheels. In short, no one should be traveling to the United States this way and least of all young children, some of whom, according to published newspaper reports, are as young as 3 and 5 years old. Can any parent comprehend the idea of a 3- or 5-year-old coming unaccompanied or perhaps en masse with drug cartels and criminal organizations transporting them from their home country to the United States? The Border Patrol reported that 180 convicted sex offenders have been arrested since October while coming across the southwestern border. Can you imagine this trip with convicted sex offenders mixed into the mass of humanity coming across the border? Some children who ride The Beast are kidnapped or forced to become drug mules or forced into sexual slavery. In fact, some who make it all the way to Texas and north remain prisoners of organized crime after crossing the U.S. border. I remember talking to one young woman. About 1 year ago I had the chance to visit with her. She came from Central America. She was brought by a coyote, they called him--a human smuggler--into Houston, TX. She had family in New Jersey, but that didn't work out, so she came back to Houston where she was essentially held as an indentured servant and prostituted and forced to turn over the proceeds of that money to the coyote--the smuggler. When people operate in the shadows of the law, they have no protection of the law, and the people who are the most likely to get hurt are the immigrants themselves or certainly the immigrant community. We need to keep that in mind. We have to remember that Mexico's biggest and most violent drug cartels are heavily involved in this trafficking, as I mentioned earlier. Time magazine reported last year: ``Cartels control most of Mexico's smuggling networks through which victims are moved, while they also take money from pimps and brothels operating in their territories.'' The cartels, gangs, and sex traffickers are only too happy to prey on the poor, vulnerable migrants, including children, transiting through their terrain. Experts believe the Mexican drug cartels may earn as much as $10 billion a year from sex trafficking and sex slavery alone. These are not nice people. According to Amnesty International: ``Some human rights organizations and academics estimate that as many as six in 10 women and girl''--and one-quarter of these unaccompanied minors are girls--``migrants experience sexual violence during the journey'' through Mexico--6 out of 10. A new CRS--Congressional Research Service--memo reports that based on apprehension data provided by Customs and Border Protection, ``there has been an increase in the number of [accompanied alien children] who are girls and the number of [unaccompanied alien children] who under the age of 13.'' They are not exactly able to defend themselves against the monstrosities they encounter along the way. I hope it is clear to everyone listening and to the President and every other person of good will, that we should be doing everything possible to discourage people from risking their lives in the first place, and especially their children's lives, on such a dangerous journey. Before I came to the Senate, I happened to be the Attorney General of Texas, and before that I had a career in law and the judiciary. It is standard criminal jurisprudence that not only should law enforcement enforce the laws in order to maintain the law, but the law serves another important function; that is, deterrence. In other words, it stops people from doing things they know they should not do in the first place rather than just catching them after they do it. This is one of the elements that is missing and unfortunately was encouraged by the impression that you got a free ticket if all you had to do was get on the train and show up in South Texas. As I have said, this is very dangerous stuff, and it has backfired in unexpected ways. Yesterday, I listed five simple suggestions to the President that he could take to start fixing the problem. I was glad to hear Secretary Johnson talk about some of the ad hoc measures he has begun to implement, but the truth is they are struggling to catch up. I urged the President, No. 1, to publicly declare that his 2012 deferred action program will not apply to children currently arriving at the border. Let me stop there to say that this morning some of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee could not resist the temptation to take a partisan shot. They said if the House had just passed immigration reform, this never would have happened. My point is the President's deferred action program doesn't even apply to these children, so it is still against the law for them to enter. But they realize, as a practical matter, although the resources and capacity of the Federal Government are overwhelmed, there is no way we can turn them back, and they will have to be handled compassionately and in a humane sort of way. It would help if, No. 1, the President would make clear he has not issued a free ticket to anyone who wants to enter the country illegally. No. 2, I encouraged him to publicly discourage people from attempting the journey through Mexico, and it would help if our Mexican counterparts would do a better job--maybe with our help and assistance--securing their southern border, since that would stop a lot of people from coming from Central America through Mexico on this dangerous journey which I have tried to describe. I also encouraged the President to enforce all of our immigration laws regardless of political needs or any frustration he might feel or anyone else might feel on the current stalemate in which we find ourselves. Sometimes these things take a little time. My hope is, if not before, then by next year, Congress--the Senate and the House--can begin to move a series of smaller pieces of legislation that are more transparent, consensus based, and begin to repair the broken immigration system. I don't think anybody believes on the right or the left that the status quo is acceptable, and indeed it is dangerous to the people I have described. So I mentioned the fourth item, which is to work with the Mexican Government to improve security at the border with Guatemala. I was recently in Juarez, Mexico, right across the river from El Paso, which used to be one of the most dangerous places on the planet because of all of the conflict between the drug cartels. Things are getting better. It is still pretty rough, but things are getting better thanks to strong leaders, such as the mayor, whom I met with there, and thanks to the assistance the U.S. Government is providing through the Merida Initiative to help train law enforcement and to provide equipment and the like. So we could step up our work with the Mexican Government to help them secure their own southern border, which would eliminate more than half of this migration from Central America. Finally, I urge the President to take the step of making sure that Texas and other U.S. border States and communities have the resources they need to address the ongoing crisis. Today I reiterate those calls, and I also call on the President to please act as soon as possible. Make no mistake. The actions we take and sometimes the actions we don't take have unintended consequences. But in the days and weeks ahead, there will be life-or-death consequences to an untold number of vulnerable children, perhaps in the misperception that they can come to the United States if they can just get here, without understanding the treacherous journey that will befall them. We are doing no one a service by allowing that. Because the impression created by the President has resulted in this problem, at least in substantial part, I believe he has the unique authority and power to begin to fix it. But first he will have to send the message that I mentioned a moment ago, which is that there is no free ticket into the United States. We have to deal with the humanitarian crisis of these children and make sure they are safe, but then we need to get about the business of enforcing our laws and not just giving the impression that anybody and everybody who wants to come to the United States can come here. Perhaps in a perfect world everybody could live in America. But the fact is that we need to have our immigration laws for our protection and for the protection of legal immigrants. We need to do everything we can to send a message that we are a caring country, but we are also a country that believes in the rule of law. We need to restore order out of this chaos, while dealing with the immediate humanitarian crisis of this wave of children that is overwhelming the capability of the Federal Government to deal with it. We need to do everything we can together to address all of these issues. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi, (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. I agree with the Senator from Arizona. I think this is not a coincidence. There is, in my view, very much of a cause-and- effect relationship between this poorly thought out unilateral action by the President, without much knowledge of or thought given to the consequences. As the Senator from Arizona knows, because he has certainly fought the fight to fix our broken immigration laws, and I have been involved in many of those myself, this is a direct result of the President basically trying to go it alone and basically trying to send a message, a political message, but one that gives very little thought to the very real-world human consequences of his political actions. The Senator from Arizona was talking a little bit about this trip from Central America. I would show my colleagues, as we know, Mexico has had a lot of security issues that have been dealt with by the last administration, President Calderon's administration, and now are continuing to be dealt with by the current administration in Mexico. But the Zetas, some of the hardest core of the drug cartels, essentially control large portions of this region of eastern Mexico. If you look from Guatemala, from Central America right at the bottom of Mexico here, the pathway these children would have to make all of the way up through Mexico into South Texas, into the Rio Grande Valley, essentially is through territory controlled by the Zetas, the drug cartel. One question that is horrible to contemplate is how many of the children who started this long 1,200 mile or so trek actually made it to the end of their journey, and how many fell out along the way as a result of illness, as a result of criminal activity, such as kidnapping, how many were assaulted along the way. This is a crisis that needs to be addressed. I would point out to my colleagues, I have in my hand--and I ask unanimous consent that this document be printed in the Record following my remarks. I would read from it. This is a release from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection dated May 12, 2014. As of May 12, 2014, nearly 180 sex offenders were arrested in the Rio Grande Valley sector alone. That is so far in 2014. Can you imagine that amidst the 47,000 children who have been detained since October of last year coming across the border, that mixed into this pot of people were we know at least 180 convicted sex offenders. This article continues to point out that: Additionally, agents have arrested more than 50 members of the Mara Salvatrucha gang, or MS-13, a notorious transnational criminal gang that started in Los Angeles, and about 14 members of the 18th Street gang. For my colleagues' information, many of them have heard about a train that goes up through Mexico that many of the migrants from Central America take in order to help them make their journey. This train is called the Beast, sometimes called the Beast of Death. The stories, and indeed the books, that have been written about this chronicle how horrendous this trip is. We can see in this picture there are young people and older people sitting on top of this train, riding it as far as they can, helping them make their journey up that eastern coast of Mexico from Central America, the 1,200 miles they would take to get from Guatemala City to South Texas. Many of them travel on this train known as the Beast. The stories of what has happened here, of people who have lost their lives, people who have been decapitated when the train has gone through tunnels, people who tried to jump on a moving train only to lose limbs after a fall under the train, will chill your blood. But the fact is the administration, and indeed the entire Federal Government, needs to deal with this crisis and needs to deal not only with the causes of it but what the effects are and particularly the humanitarian crisis involving this growing number of unaccompanied children. Federal, State, and local authorities along the border have completely been overwhelmed by the influx. You can imagine that the Border Patrol, which is in the business of processing these children as they are detained and handing them off to Health and Human Services and other agencies, their attention has been diverted from their primary mission of border security because they have had to lend a hand to deal with the humanitarian crisis. With so many children arriving day after day and with so many of them lacking any identification documents, it has been tremendously difficult to figure out exactly who they are, why they left home, where they have family, and where they should be sent while their case is being processed. We don't know how many of them have been victims of human trafficking, for example, how many of them might qualify as refugees under U.S. law, how many of them are actually over the age of 18, and how many of them might have a criminal record. Can anyone at the White House or in the administration say with certainty the children being released from U.S. custody are leaving with an actual family member? The Senator from Arizona alluded to children being shipped from Texas to Arizona where they were left at bus stops and elsewhere, basically with a request that they reappear at a given time. But, of course, 90 percent, I am told, never show up back at their court appointment. For that matter, can the administration say with certainty that none of these children have been handed over to an adult with a criminal record? The answer to both of these questions is no. In short, this is a complete mess, and the use of resources available to Texas and U.S. officials are under enormous strain. The administration estimates that roughly 60,000 of these unaccompanied children will be apprehended this fiscal year. Perhaps twice that many may be apprehended next year. We can see the trend here and, of course, all we know from this chart is what it was before the President's deferred action announcement, and we know what it is now. But the trendline is undeniable and appears to be growing at an exponential rate. The crisis we are facing now represents a tragic and painful example of the law of unintended consequences. Two years ago when the President stood in the Rose Garden and announced a unilateral administrative change in U.S. immigration policy, he probably thought he was doing a good thing. But between that policy change and his broader failure to uphold our immigration laws-- indeed his statement that he essentially will not enforce broad swaths of those laws--the President has created an extremely dangerous incentive for children and their parents to cross into the United States under these sorts of treacherous and horrific circumstances. In other words, the policies that were supposed to be adopted for humanitarian purposes to help these children have created a genuine humanitarian disaster for these same supposed beneficiaries of this unilateral policy. While there is widespread violence and poverty in Central America, sadly, that is not something entirely new, and it is not the cause of our current crisis. President Obama's immigration policies, primarily his policy of nonenforcement, have encouraged untold numbers of parents and children to make a shockingly dangerous journey through the interior of Mexico riding the Beast, some of whom have been subjected to unknown horrors and treatment at the hands of the very same people who were paid to transport them. The stories I have read indicate that at stops along the way people are held up at gunpoint. If they don't turn over money to their would- be assailant, then they are threatened with being shot and even killed. While we may have a rough idea of how many children are actually crossing into America, we will never know with certainty how many actually start that journey and never make it, how many die along the way, are kidnapped or perhaps sexually abused or otherwise mistreated because of the lawless conditions under which this takes place. But we do know the massive surge in unaccompanied minors is directly attributable to actions taken or not taken by the administration. Therefore, I would implore President Obama to immediately do five things: No. 1, he should immediately declare that the so-called deferred action program--which I referred to earlier that he unilaterally ordered in 2012--does not apply to the children currently arriving at the border. One aspect of enforcement is deterrence, and so deterring the children from ever starting that long, dangerous trek has to be part of the solution. No. 2, the President should immediately discourage people in Central America and elsewhere from sending their children on such a dangerous journey. No. 3, the President should immediately begin to enforce all U.S. immigration laws and engage with the Congress in any changes he thinks are warranted and not simply ignore the ones he finds convenient or politically expedient. No. 4, he should immediately take steps to ensure that Texas and other U.S. border States have the resources they need to address this ongoing humanitarian crisis. No. 5, he should immediately start working with the Mexican Government to improve security at Mexico's southern border. This is a 500-mile border between Mexico and Guatemala that, if it were better secured, would deter many of these children and other migrants from coming through Mexico and subjecting themselves to these dangerous conditions in the first place. If the President did all five of those, not only would it help us resolve the current crisis, but it would also help us prevent similar crises from erupting in the future. These children are being preyed on by drug cartels and human traffickers, and they are at high risk of being kidnapped, raped or even killed while traveling this long dangerous journey to the United States. But sadly, when they arrive here, we still have no way of guaranteeing their safety because of the lack of an adequate plan to deal with this humanitarian crisis. President Obama effectively created this problem and now he has an opportunity to work with us to fix it. I can only hope he does the right thing. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the U.S. Customs and Border Protection document I referred to earlier.

Mr. CORNYN. I would say to the Senator, I know some of it entails warehousing children at places such as Lackland Air Force Base, and the last report I saw, about 1,000 of them are located there. I am not sure what the plan is going forward. I assume some of it will be to try to reunite them with family members here in the United States. But if they do not have family members, then they are going to basically become wards of the State. I am not aware of any plan. The reason why I came to the floor today is to express the very concerns the Senator from Arizona has expressed about the causes and the effects of such a poorly thought out policy, which basically sends the message that anybody who can make it here, particularly minors, can come into the United States and we are totally unprepared, in my view, to deal with this humanitarian crisis. We need to be prepared.

Mr. CORNYN. I would say to the Senator from Arizona that I am a little surprised it has not gotten more attention either. That is one reason that motivated me to come to the floor today to highlight this. Tomorrow, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Secretary Jeh Johnson of the Department of Homeland Security will be testifying. I hope he can provide us some answers, because what we need is a comprehensive look at what are the incentives that would convince parents to send their unaccompanied children up through this horrific trip through Mexico, some 1,200 miles from Central America, to such an uncertain fate here in the United States, much less along the way. We need to know what the President's plan is to deal with this. I know the Senator has spent a lot of time in places such as Jordan and Turkey that I have had the occasion to visit. One of our colleagues pointed out, this is like having refugee camps here in the United States, something nobody ever thought we would have.

Mr. CORNYN. The Senator is exactly right. I did not answer his question. Let me try to do a better job. As the Senator knows, in years past, the migrants who came across the border typically were people looking for work. But now with the dominance of large swaths of Mexico and Central America by drug cartels, they basically are trafficking in people, in drugs, in guns, and anything that will make them a buck. Unfortunately, they have no scruples whatsoever and no concern for these young, vulnerable children. They recognize their parents are willing to pay money to them to transport them from Central America to the United States. But the problem is they have no control over what happens to those children when they are in the hands of the drug cartels and these transnational gangs as they bring them all the way from Guatemala, for example, which is 1,200 miles away from McAllen, TX. Many of these children suffer from exposure, in addition to being preyed upon by a variety of unscrupulous characters.

Mr. CORNYN. I would say to the Senator from Arizona, he knows a lot about this topic, living in Arizona. But I think it is a combination of factors. It is, 1, the message that was sent by the unilateral deferred action the President ordered in 2012 saying that even children who come here meeting certain criteria would be low priorities for deportation. So the message was: If you can come to America, and you get here, then you are basically not going to be sent back home. I think it is also a combination, as the Senator knows, of the violence in the failed state status, nearly, of some of the Central American countries where most of these kids come from. But it is creating, as the Senator knows, a humanitarian crisis because we do not have the facilities to take care of this many minor children. Here again, these are just the ones who made it. The Senator knows how dangerous the trek is from Central America up through Mexico through areas controlled by the drug cartels. Many of these children, some reportedly as young as 5 or 3 years old, are obviously very vulnerable to being preyed upon by unscrupulous characters.

Mr. CORNYN. I will.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in recent weeks it has become impossible to deny the fact that we have a full-blown humanitarian crisis along the U.S.-Mexican border. Sadly, this crisis is directly the result of President Obama's own policies, and it involves tens of thousands of young children, some reportedly as young as 3 years old, risking their lives. Indeed, young children are traveling through extremely dangerous territory run by brutal drug cartels that prey on the weak in the form of human trafficking, rape, and even murder. This year alone tens of thousands of unaccompanied minor children have been detained while crossing illegally into the United States. A large percentage has been found in the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas. To give the Senate an idea of what has happened and the timeline here, as recently as 2011 there were 6,560 unaccompanied minors detained at the border between the United States and Mexico. Then in 2012 the President announced he was taking administrative action to defer deportation of a certain class of minors, most of whom had come here as young children but had since grown up, sometimes called the Dreamers. But this action in 2012 sent a message, apparently, to other people who were anxious to come to the United States. So you see in 2013, there were 24,000 unaccompanied minors. It is projected, although the number is not known, that it will rise to 60,000, or the Senator from Arizona has said he has heard as high as 90,000 potentially of these unaccompanied minors.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as all of us know, tomorrow, June 6, marks the 70th anniversary of the Normandy landings, which we have come to know as D-day. D-day, of course, was the greatest military operation in history--one that brought together 150,000 troops, 5,000 ships, and 13,000 aircraft in a sweeping attack on Nazi-occupied France and marked the beginning of the end for Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich. The Allied Powers, of course, united as one and changed the course of history. It was our troops and our allies who freed a continent from the clutches of tyranny and our troops who helped win a war. As a country, it is important that we recall occasions such as the 70th anniversary of the Normandy invasion and D-day because the greatest danger is that we forget--we forget about the face of evil and what it means to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--but it also means we need to remind ourselves on a regular basis about the heroism and courage and sacrifice of the people who gave all they had, including their lives, in order to preserve for us what we now have and what we too often take for granted. We often hear that freedom is not free, and, of course, we all agree with that, but it almost has become a cliche, and it should not be. When we think about our freedom, we ought to think about those men who stormed the beaches at Normandy, many of whom lost their lives. We must always remember those who fought in places such as Iwo Jima and ran into a buzz saw of enemy fire, many of whom never came back. We need to remember those important events on a day such as this, and we need to tell the story not only to remind ourselves, but we also need to tell the story to our children and grandchildren because they will, before long, have a responsibility for preserving this great experiment we have had in America for over 230 years--a self-governing democracy that has been purchased by the blood and the treasure of those who have gone on before. The free world as we know it owes its existence to the courage, grit, and sacrifice of those who fought in places like Normandy, and, of course, they will not be forgotten. For me personally, I can't help but think about Normandy--which my wife and I had an opportunity to visit a few years ago--without thinking of my father-in-law, who landed on Utah Beach on the second day of the Normandy invasion. He said that after the first day it was much easier to get on the beach, but the effort to clear out the German Army and the hedgerows was murderous work and very dangerous. Thankfully, he came home, like so many, as part of the ``greatest generation'' that helped to build America into the powerhouse we are today. My father-in-law passed away recently at the age of 96 and lived a long and rewarding life. But I can't let the occasion pass without remembering him as one of those brave men who stormed the beaches at Normandy 70 years ago. Of course, there is another chilling number when we think about World War II. Fifty million people lost their lives during World War II. It was the bloodiest conflict in the history of the world--50 million people. During World War II, of course, we recall that brutal dictators and totalitarian ideologies threatened the very existence of the civilized world, and we are reminded of people like Adolf Hitler and what he did and what other countries did in response either by way of appeasement or by way of challenging his aggression. And then we know about the war, of course, following the Pearl Harbor attack in Hawaii. America had to fight wars on two fronts--one in Asia and the other in Europe. When the United States crossed the Atlantic and joined its allies on the beach of Normandy, the rescue of Europe had begun. History tells us that the weather and conditions that day were harsh. In fact, one soldier described the battle as everything going wrong from the beginning. Without a doubt, they knew what awaited them there, and they were not deterred. You might wonder, as I have from time to time, what it took for our men and women in uniform to charge a beach occupied by the German military in France. What could have inspired the kind of courage we have seen? Well, I had occasion to read a book a few years ago, as perhaps other colleagues have, written by James McPherson. It is called ``For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War.'' When you learn about the brutality of the Civil War and how many people lost their lives and, indeed, the likelihood of losing your life--being tragically injured, acquiring an infection, and then losing your life in some of the most painful and horrendous ways you can imagine--it was instructive for me to realize not only did they fight for our country, but they fought for each other as well, which, of course, is the lesson of all wars--fighting for a cause and fighting for each other. Undeniably, much of the success on D-day was the result of a great strategy and plan by American war planners, including a man born in Denison, TX, by the name of Dwight David Eisenhower, who served as the Supreme Allied Commander. I see my colleague from Kansas on the floor, and I know Kansas lays claim to Dwight D. Eisenhower, but I want to state here on the floor of the Senate that he was born in Denison, TX, and not in Kansas, although we are proud to share his legacy between both of our States and as a country. General Eisenhower's address to the troops on the eve of the landing stands as one of the most memorable exhortations to bravery in the face of evil in the annals of world history. I would like to take a moment to read some of those words. Here is what General Eisenhower wrote: Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force! You are about to embark on a great crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with you. He continued: The free men of the world are marching together to victory! I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory! At a different time, Eisenhower once said: ``Morale is the single most important factor in successful wars.'' Morale was what united the Allied Powers--not the desire to conquer real estate but the desire to defeat the tyrants of Europe, to liberate the prisoners of war and those in concentration camps, and to forever defeat the evil ideology that motivated Adolf Hitler and his ilk. We know the world we live in is always filled with great uncertainty and, unfortunately, with evil men and those who would smash democracy and self-government under the boot heel of dictators and tyrants. So while we always pray fervently for peace, we must also be ready to defeat tyrants, dictators, and those who would crush democracy under their boot heel. D-day reminds us that the United States can and should always stand with our friends against terror and tyranny. Back home in Texas, we have another reminder of this day. For the first time since the war, the battle flag that was raised above the USS Texas as it entered the waters off Point du Hoc on June 6, 1944, is now on public display at the Houston Museum of Natural Science in honor of D-day's 70th anniversary. Crewman Emil Saul, who was aboard the USS Texas, preserved the flag for 48 years and gave it to the museum in 1992. Now possessing the space and conditions to properly exhibit the flag, the museum has made this flag public for the first time in honor of the 70th anniversary of D-day. This flag, of course, symbolizes the valor our troops demonstrated that day and makes sure future generations will never, ever forget their sacrifices. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in the wake of some recent Supreme Court decisions touching on our system of campaign finance, there has arisen in the Senate, frankly, this bizarre notion that we are going to amend the Constitution to undo the Bill of Rights, and particularly the First Amendment and its protection of the freedom of speech. Of course, the proponents don't describe it that way. To hear the majority leader, who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, he said: They are merely trying to keep what he called dark money out of American politics. By giving Congress the ability to regulate political speech and the means by which that is paid for and disseminated, this amendment would invite all manner of partisan mischief and abuses and effectively dismantle one of the most fundamental liberties secured by our Constitution which makes America the envy of the world, and in many ways unique in that we protect freedom of speech without regard to the content of the speech and without regard to the identity of the speaker, whether they be rich, poor, or a member of the middle class. Whether that opinion is informed or not necessarily well-informed, we believe in the marketplace of ideas where the American people are the only judge as to what they believe the truth is. We don't try to stifle or squelch speakers, particularly in the political process. As our good friend the Republican leader said yesterday: If incumbent politicians were in charge of political speech, a majority could design the rules to benefit itself and diminish its opponents. And when roles reversed, you could expect a new majority to try to disadvantage the other half of the country. And on it would go. So this power the majority leader has proposed in amending the Constitution so Congress could regulate political speech could be an instrument of incumbent protection where the party in power could use that as a weapon against the minority trying to persuade the country that they should be restored to the majority rather than linger as a minority. Is this really the kind of system our colleagues who are proposing this constitutional amendment want? Well, you have to ask whether they have any realistic belief that this will actually become law. And of course it would have to pass both Houses of the Congress by a two- thirds vote, and it would have to be ratified by three-quarters of the States. I don't think it is an overstatement to say they have no chance of this becoming law. Why in the world is such an outlandish proposal being made by somebody such as the distinguished majority leader of the Senate and other folks in his party? Well, it is no exaggeration to say this proposed amendment would undermine American democracy as we know it, so there has to be some other reason other than the substance of the amendment they are trying to get at. Lest we forget the whole purpose of the First Amendment is to ensure that all political speech--as a matter of fact all speech, period--is protected from government interference, and that is why it is in the Bill of Rights, at the time our country was founded there was a serious debate about whether we needed an explicit Bill of Rights or whether the very structure of our government with its checks and balances and our shared power between the judicial, executive, and legislative branches would itself provide that protection. But the Federalists said, no, we are not going to settle for that. We want an explicit protection of those rights that are not derived from government but which precede government--which don't come from government but come from our Creator. Under the logic used by the proponents, the government should change this provision in the Bill of Rights that has been the law of the land for more than 200 years and now start regulating how much money newspapers, magazines, and Web sites are allowed to spend on articles concerning politics and public policy. After all, when media outlets publish this information, they are using their financial advantage over ordinary citizens to be able to get their views out to the public. And, of course, they are trying to persuade citizens and voters and trying to affect political outcomes, both in terms of public policy choices and elections. The majority leader, if he were on the floor, might say: Well, we have a provision in here that we will not grant Congress the power to abridge freedom of the press. If you could turn off and on the money by which the press disseminates its point of view, if you can regulate perhaps even to the point of zero on the part of political actors and their ability to disseminate their views in the public or influence voters before the election, this carveout is effectively meaningless. It would most certainly grant Congress the power to abridge the free speech of individuals and groups as disparate as the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, and the Sierra Club, which obviously have different views but enjoy and are entitled to the same freedom to speak their views and persuade people to their point of view as much as anybody else. It would also grant Congress the power to abridge other freedoms in the First Amendment, such as freedom of assembly and freedom to petition government for the redress of grievances, and it would allow State governments to ride roughshod even over freedom of the press. You have to wonder why in the world would intelligent, highly educated, experienced Senators--people who are knowledgeable about all of the matters I have talked about--propose such a wrongheaded idea and one they know will never become the law of the land? Well, unfortunately, this is part of an effort to intimidate and stigmatize people from participating in the political process. We know the majority leader comes out to the floor and talks daily about the Koch brothers, whom he happens to disagree with, and he disagrees with their right and ability to participate in the political process and to affect elections. He doesn't talk about other political actors, such as organized labor, which has essentially been carved out of the limitations on political contributions and political spending. He doesn't talk about people such as Tom Steyer, a former hedge fund manager who says he will spend $100 million against anyone who supports the Keystone Pipeline or anyone who opposes his views on climate change. This cherry-picking in terms of trying to intimidate people and to squelch political speech is pretty apparent. It becomes apparent because obviously the majority leader is very worried about the upcoming midterm election and what might happen when we see the pushback from voters in the Senate races all across the country over the last 5 years, and this great, huge growth in government and its intrusiveness in their lives. Here is the bottom line: Free speech is free speech, period. To quote a recent Supreme Court decision: There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders. As they said, there is nothing more basic. As I mentioned a moment ago, thankfully the Founders were wise enough not only to give us the Bill of Rights and our Constitution but to make it very difficult to amend it in the first place, so we know the majority leader's amendment has no chance of actually passing. Yet its mere introduction, the fact that a major political party and a majority in the Senate apparently believes in shrinking the First Amendment in order to weaken their political opponents, should be a cause of broadspread concern in the country. People ought to ask the question: Why in the world would you propose to do something as draconian and as damaging as that? Well, it is the kind of amendment we would expect to see not in the greatest deliberative body in the world, and certainly not in the Senate, but maybe some banana republic or some country that does not have our experience or our foundation in constitutional self- government. Therefore, it is not merely enough to reject this amendment and then quickly move on to something else. We need to send a clear, unambiguous message that the Bill of Rights is not up for debate. We need to send a clear, unambiguous message that our First Amendment freedoms represent the bedrock of American democracy, and we will not agree to undermine that, damage it, or otherwise impair it on our watch. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the Senator fron Kansas (Mr. Roberts).