John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I am sorry. I had a mental warp there.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, once again, the Senator from Washington is objecting to a clean extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, section 702, which would prevent us from going dark on foreign intelligence risks and threats to our country. As for the sorts of things that he has talked about here, since 2024, Congress has passed dozens of transparency and accountability reforms that have actually worked. Congressional oversight, of course, is critical. The Senator and I and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee are here. We all serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that performs important oversight functions to make sure that the balance between privacy and security is the right balance. Indeed, the bipartisan Cotton, Grassley, and Warner bill, which is available to us to vote on, has almost two dozen additional protections included. We should be taking up that bill, not threatening to go dark and create dangers to our Nation. Also, it is not just the program that expires on Friday. There is a lot of oversight protection built into the current bill and past FISA reauthorizations. If that goes dark, all of those previous protections that were negotiated, that I know the Senator from Washington believes in--those would go away. So, in addition to being in danger--the American people and our national security--it would eliminate the very sorts of privacy protections and transparency that the Senator from Washington is arguing for here on an expanded basis. Under those circumstances, I object.

Mr. CORNYN.--what we are talking about is the contact between the foreign target and the U.S. person or American citizen. We are not talking about content. That would require another step to find that content approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. So I think there is some confusion about what is already collected and what would seek to be collected but which would require another step.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if the Senator will allow me to respond--

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon is prepared to let this essential foreign intelligence surveillance tool go dark unless we accede to his demands. And frankly, the demand for a warrant to search lawfully collected foreign intelligence makes no sense whatsoever. Section 702 is probably the most important law most people have never heard about. It protects American citizens by saying that only foreigners can be the object of surveillance, but necessarily sometimes, when the communication is between a foreign target and an American citizen or a U.S. person, that call is documented in metadata, so-called--time, place, and persons who have made the call. That is lawfully collected intelligence. What this requirement would mean is that the FBI, mainly, would have to go out and try to prove the elements of a crime, a probable cause that a crime has been committed, in order to get a judge to issue a warrant to look at lawfully collected intelligence, which is basically the metadata. If content is required or asked for by the FBI, they have to go before a judge and establish why that is. But one of the basic points of confusion is that some people think that gathering intelligence is the same thing as investigating a crime. It can be sometimes, but basically seeking intelligence is forward- looking in order to prevent future acts, for example, of terrorism. Criminal investigations look backward to see if a crime has been committed and are subject to criminal penalties, which do include, particularly with U.S. persons involved, all the constitutional protections that U.S. citizens and U.S. persons enjoy. Foreigners do not enjoy Fourth Amendment protection against this sort of surveillance. So first of all, I believe that this is misguided. We have heard from the intelligence community that this requirement will slow down collection of intelligence, including and during occasions where time is of the essence. So courts have found that none of these queries require or implicate Fourth Amendment protection. So the very foundation for this argument has been rejected by the courts that have reviewed it. Senator Wyden's bill would be akin to asking police officers to get a warrant every time they happen to look at legally collected evidence in their evidence locker. It makes no sense whatsoever. Requiring a warrant for every query of already lawfully collected information in the 702 database would significantly hinder the ability to respond to emerging threats. For that reason, I object.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday, at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, some of our colleagues suggested that the United States started a war against Iran 92 days ago. I believe the facts are to the contrary. Iran started a war against the United States and our ally Israel in 1979 from the date of the Iranian Revolution. This is the backdrop to President Trump's military campaign known as Operation Epic Fury. While the operation has formally concluded--and there is ostensibly a cease-fire--there doesn't seem to be a resolution of the conflict to be sure. Meanwhile, there has been a block in the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world's energy supplies flow ordinarily. At the same time, the Iranian economy is collapsing. Operation Epic Fury built on the success of last summer's Operation Midnight Hammer, which targeted three nuclear facilities--successfully eliminating top nuclear scientists--and it concluded within 12 days. Negotiations, of course, are ongoing to address the underlying issues between Iran and the United States and Israel, particularly Iran's nuclear program that led to this conflict in the first place. And it remains to be seen if a permanent, durable resolution is possible. Now, bizarrely, Democrats have almost universally criticized President Trump's actions toward Iran, and there has been a great deal of pressure on the administration to bring these negotiations to a close under any terms. But ever since Bill Clinton was President, Republicans and Democratic Presidents alike have warned us about the risk of a nuclear Iran. And President Trump, to his credit, was in charge when we finally did something decisive about it. But in order to assess how these ongoing hostilities should end, it is worth taking a step backward and remembering why we started down this path in the first place. The ostensible purpose of Operation Epic Fury--building on Operation Midnight Hammer last summer--was always to prevent the Islamic regime from acquiring a nuclear weapon and to stop them from continuing to enrich uranium, as President Trump pointed out last year--that remains the goal--and to dismantle their ability to enrich uranium in the future, I might add. The President has made very clear that he does not want Iran to ever get a nuclear weapon, and in a normal world, you would think there would be unanimous agreement among Republicans and Democrats. Well, I agree with President Trump's position, and I hope we stay the course and complete the job that we started. Last summer, he summarized the situation well, and this is the quote: You can't have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon. That remains our ultimate objective: peace. But if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, we will not have peace. We will have a ticking nuclear time bomb. Yesterday, in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, our former colleague Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the existential threat that Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon would create. He said: If Iran ever acquired a nuclear weapon, they would be able to hold the world hostage. They would hyperscale their efforts of global terrorism and completely try to drive us out of the region and ultimately destroy the State of Israel. And you wouldn't be able to do anything about it--he said--because they would have a nuclear weapon and would threaten to blow people up if you tried to move against them. The radical regime of Iran is the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism, and they have made it abundantly clear to the United States and to the world that they cannot be trusted. They support, of course, terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah, al-Qaida, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Houthis. Recall that Iran provided materiel support for attacks on American soil in the runup to September 11, 2001. They backed and sometimes directly carried out attacks on Americans over multiple decades in the Middle East. They funded and trained Hamas terrorists who murdered more than 1,200 innocent men, women, and children, including 46 Americans, on October 7, 2023. Closer to home, Iran is also actively financing drug trafficking activities in Central America and is using the proceeds from this illicit commerce to continue funding their terror activities around the world. Once Iran achieves a nuclear weapon, they will have complete leverage over the Strait of Hormuz. They can continue to fund terrorism around the globe, including here in the Western Hemisphere. The President's actions against the Islamic Republic of Iran demonstrate his understanding and appreciation of the danger that a nuclear Iran would pose to America and the world. Now, of course, if possible, we should always hope that there could be productive negotiations and a cease-fire, but it has to be verifiable. We have to achieve the goals that the President has set out for us, and we can't back off of that without badly botching the leverage that we have now to accomplish these goals. Perhaps the most significant current point of contention is that Iran has, of course, effectively, closed the Strait of Hormuz in attempting to choke off the global energy supply, leading to higher gas prices here at home. Treasury Secretary Bessent has acknowledged that, if the strait is not opened, a global financial crisis could ensue. At the same time--and as a checkmate--the United States has blockaded Iranian ships as well, which has proven to be extremely effective and has created enormous leverage for the United States and our allies. The Iranian economy is in very bad shape and is in desperate need of relief. Again, this is another part of the maximum leverage campaign that the President started years ago. Given this, they have, obviously, proposed--the Iranian regime that is--that the United States unfreeze its assets and deliver sanctions relief as part of any negotiated deal. Reporting from Reuters noted just a few days ago that Iran is ``pushing for a limited interim agreement with the United States in a bid to ease mounting economic pressure and stabilize the situation at home, while avoiding major concessions on its nuclear program.'' I sincerely hope we don't take the bait. Agreeing to these demands would be a grave miscalculation. If the United States were to give Iran billions of dollars in sanctions relief in exchange for reopening the strait, there is no doubt the money would be put to nefarious purposes. Plus, there is no promise or no guarantee they won't simply close it again in order to extract more concessions in the future. If we remove the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports and passage through Iranian waters without eliminating their nuclear program and the highly enriched uranium as well as their capacity to enrich in the future, then we forfeit a key point of leverage against the regime, and we will have failed to accomplish our goals in defanging the regime. Operation Epic Fury and the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports has been extremely successful in reducing the threat posed by the Iranian regime. More than 13,000 targets have been struck, including Iranian ballistic missile sites, ballistic missile and drone manufacturing facilities, weapons production and storage bunkers, and surface-to-air missile facilities. Iran has lost many of its missile launchers, and missile attacks have fallen by 90 percent. More than 150 Iranian Navy vessels have been damaged or destroyed. As these negotiations for a resolution to this conflict proceed toward their conclusion, it is important that we keep a couple of things in mind. First, we must resist the temptation to declare this war has been futile or unsuccessful. We are not done yet. Weakening the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terror and removing its ability to acquire nuclear weapons will make the world a safer place. Second, we must remember why the United States and Israel took such decisive actions in the first place, and we have to make sure the job is finished in such a way that it will provide for a lasting resolution and lasting peace. I know there is a lot of pressure on President Trump and this administration to end the conflict as soon as possible on any terms, but that would be a serious mistake. I believe President Reagan aptly captured this point in an address he gave to Congress after a summit with the Soviet Union, when he said: We know that peace is not just the absence of war. We don't want a phony peace or a frail peace. We didn't go in pursuit of some kind of illusory detente. We can't be satisfied with cosmetic improvements that won't stand the test of time. We want real peace. I hope President Trump will not waste this once-in-a-generation opportunity to end Iran's nuclear program, to recover the enriched uranium and eliminate their capacity to enrich in the future, and to force the opening--reopening--of the Strait of Hormuz and make it impossible for the regime to continue to hold the world hostage. I hope President Trump will stay strong in pursuit of these objectives and that, if the Iranian regime will not yet agree to those in a verifiable manner, then I hope the President will use his authority as Commander in Chief to do so and force them to the negotiating table on terms that we insist on, not on what they demand. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this year, as we all know, we are celebrating America's 250th anniversary. This, of course, is an opportunity for all of us to reflect with gratitude on the many liberties and freedoms that we enjoy--fundamental freedoms not enjoyed by most of the rest of the world--all of which help make America an exceptional nation. America is a country envied by millions or perhaps billions of people around the world who long to experience the liberties we too often take for granted here at home. But it is also true that many countries do not share our values. Instead, they impose authoritarian or theocratic rules on their own citizens, as we have witnessed in recent years. Even on continents like Africa, countries like Nigeria have come under international scrutiny for violating the rights and freedoms of Christians and other religious groups as their legal system has become more and more entwined with theocratic rule--in this case, Sharia law. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a report last July detailing some of these abuses. The report found that Nigeria's enforcement of so-called blasphemy laws has created restrictions on the religious freedom of Christians and other faith groups. Nigeria's Constitution grants authority to local governments to adjudicate their laws through Sharia, or religious, courts. In some states, this has resulted in the charging, fining, and imprisonment of non-Muslims. Twelve states in Northern Nigeria have been permitted to implement laws derived from a Sharia framework criminalizing blasphemy. They have also enforced Sharia-based code punishment that utilizes corporal punishment, including amputation and stoning, for certain offenses. Some state governments in Nigeria have thrown several people into prison for violating blasphemy laws, including a Christian nurse and a humanist, who were both released last year. Several more remain in prison to this day under similar charges, with some even sentenced to the death penalty. In Europe, as a result of massive migration from Middle Eastern countries, there has been an increase in the practice of Sharia law in various Muslim enclaves--frequently, pockets of parallel legal norms in some urban centers. While we as Americans allow freedom of speech and expression and religion, it is hard to imagine a judge in another country imposing the death penalty on someone for having different beliefs or for a judge to throw someone in jail for sending a message online that a religious judge finds offensive, which, of course, would never happen in America because of the First Amendment in part, which protects religious freedom. But this is a road that America could go down if we do not remain vigilant and committed to the foundational principles of individual liberty, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion enshrined in our Constitution. These incidents occurring in Nigeria may seem far away, but they underscore the dangers of what can happen in a country that is not guided by the values that we hold dear here in America, and they offer a glimpse of what could happen in free Western countries like the United States if Sharia law became entwined in a nation's governing philosophy. As I mentioned, because of massive Muslim immigration from the Middle East into Europe, this is happening right now in many enclaves across Europe. Back home in Texas, my constituents have become increasingly alarmed at immigrant enclaves that seek to adopt Sharia law right here in the United States. Last summer, a group of individuals attempted to create a Sharia law compound in Josephine, TX, known as the East Plano Islamic Center, otherwise known as EPIC City. This complex would have been a planned community strictly for Muslims centered around a mosque and a private Islamic grade school. The developers planned to have homes available for sale to noncitizens but restricted to those who would supposedly ``contribute to the overall makeup of [the] community.'' In other words, they would seek to bar people not sharing their same beliefs. This is clearly a very lightly veiled attempt at religious discrimination and, of course, is prohibited by Federal law, including the Fair Housing Act, among other civil rights laws. Naturally, many of my constituents were concerned, as was I. There is something so alarming about this planned community where only residents of a particular faith are welcome and allowed to purchase a home and where principles of religious law like Sharia law would govern daily life, education, and commerce. I wrote a letter to the Department of Justice asking them to investigate EPIC City for potential violations of Federal civil rights laws. Governor Abbott has been instrumental in making sure that this planned community will never come to fruition, and I am thankful for his leadership and remain committed to ensuring that Texas does not ever allow such a community to be created. Furthermore, I plan to introduce legislation here in the Senate to ensure that any attempts to impose or adopt religious law, including Sharia, never become realized. Our country was founded on principles of liberty, equality, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. We cannot shrink from these ideals by allowing certain individuals to advocate or embrace Sharia law, nor can we allow advocates for Sharia law to enter our country and actively work to undermine our Constitution. We welcome legal immigrants from around the world, regardless of religious belief, who want to become Americans through a legal, orderly process, but we want Americans not just in name only but in terms of their willingness to embrace the very values ensconced and protected by our Constitution. We want them to become fully assimilated as Americans, as America always has. By recommitting ourselves to our Constitution and to our founding principles, our country will see another 250 years of liberty and justice for all. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, eight decades ago, the United States and Mexico signed an agreement now known as the 1944 Water Treaty to govern the sharing of waters in the Colorado River and the Rio Grande. According to this treaty, the United States is required to deliver 1.5 million acre-feet, or just under 500,000 gallons, of water from the Colorado River to Mexico each year. Similarly, Mexico is obligated to deliver 1.75 million acre-feet to the United States from the Rio Grande River every 5 years. And while the United States has dutifully held up its end of the bargain, Mexico has been delinquent on repeated occasions. Now, Mexico is hundreds of thousands of acre-feet behind in their required water deliveries. In the most recent cycle, which ended in October of last year, Mexico had delivered less than half of the water it was obligated to deliver under the terms of the treaty. Furthermore, Mexico has not been consistent in their water delivery, sometimes waiting until the very end of the 5-year period to deliver a substantial amount of water in an attempt, ostensibly, to catch up. This uncertainty in and of itself has made life difficult, you can imagine, for the more than 400,000 farmers and ranchers who call Texas home. Imagine trying to grow crops not knowing whether you are going to have any water for as long as 4 years, only to receive a huge lump sum at the end of year 5. It just doesn't work out. But this is a very real dilemma faced by many of my constituents in South Texas. Water deliveries from Mexico are vital to irrigation farming and municipal use in the Rio Grande Valley, helping generate billions in economic productivity for the region. Water shortages created by Mexico's failure to follow this treaty have wreaked havoc on the ability of farmers and ranchers to plan and to tend their crops, which has, in turn, had a terrible economic cost on our entire State. In 2024, the Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, which ran the only sugarcane mill in Texas, announced they were forced to close operations after more than 51 years because of these water shortages. Five hundred American jobs were lost as a result. If Mexico continues to fail to live up to the treaty, more and more farmers and ranchers and other producers will face the same fate. Many growers will potentially default on their financing, and they will be unable to secure any additional financing for future crops without the ability to plan on future water deliveries. Imagine running a bank that offers credit to farmers in the community. If you know the farmer will not be able to access the water they need in order to grow their crops and have a profitable business, obviously that makes it a much riskier bet to offer them a line of credit or a loan. Further delay of water deliveries could result in bankruptcies, land auctions, more lost jobs, supply chain disruptions, and higher prices at the grocery store for Americans around the country. I am grateful to Secretary Rubio--the Secretary of State--and Secretary Rollins of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for their leadership on this issue and for their willingness to engage with Mexico and indeed put pressure on them to hold up their end of the bargain. But South Texas farmers cannot wait. They have already suffered too much from the draught caused by Mexico's failure to live up to its obligations. The ``carrot'' approach is clearly not working, so now it is time to bring out the ``sticks.'' For this reason, I am introducing legislation called the Water Assurance and Treaty Enforcement for Rio Grande Farmers--or WATER for Farmers--Act, which will impose penalties in the form of tariffs on Mexico if they continue in their delinquency. This bill will establish annual benchmarks that Mexico must meet in order to be considered compliant with the 1944 Water Treaty. These annual benchmarks will help ensure that water deliveries are predictable for the farmers in South Texas. Waiting until the end of a 5-year treaty period to deliver water is neither realistic nor acceptable and certainly what anybody contemplated when this treaty was enacted. This bill would also direct the Secretary of State, in consultation with the U.S. Commissioner of the International Boundary and Water Commission and the Secretary of Agriculture, to determine each year if Mexico has met the requirements of these benchmarks. If Mexico does not, this legislation directs the U.S. Trade Representative to impose tariffs on the shortfalls accumulated at the end of each year. While this may seem like an extraordinary measure, Mexico has had ample time to make things right. As I said, we have tried ``carrots.'' Those don't work, so now it is time for the ``sticks.'' By imposing severe tariffs on Mexico, I hope they will pick up the pace and begin delivering the water they are already committed to delivering so that South Texas farmers and ranchers will have the predictability they need. South Texans and the agricultural community there are counting on us to ensure that Mexico complies with this treaty that they agreed to way back in 1944. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation, and I will not give up on this matter until the farmers in Texas are made whole. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 296, S. Res. 526.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on another matter, I am introducing a bill called the Barring American Citizenship by Keeping Out Foreign Fraudsters or the BACK OFF Act. This bill is designed to address a problem that has been festering in our country for some time, and that is the crime of birth tourism. In the United States, we grant citizenship to virtually everyone born on U.S. soil except for children born to diplomats and a few other categories. And indeed, there is a case now pending in the U.S. Supreme Court to determine what the breadth and depth of what that birthright citizenship should look like under the Constitution. But America is one of the few countries to allow individuals to obtain citizenship at birth regardless of parentage or immigration status, and our generosity was never meant to be exploited by our adversaries. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that some of these individuals may even use this cover of citizenship in order to engage in espionage against the United States, indeed, especially the People's Republic of China. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, more than 30,000 births in the United States each year are to women on tourist visas, while many more are born to women who are here illegally or people who simply overstay their temporary visa. Worse, entire cottage industries have sprung up over the past several decades designed to actually help facilitate foreign nationals to visit the United States on a temporary basis solely to obtain the coveted privilege of U.S. citizenship for their children. In 2020, a report from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee found that several companies--these are businesses-- several companies existed to assist individuals trying to exploit America's generosity in this regard. One such company, Ada International, worked largely with Chinese individuals while another was known as Miami Mama, which specialized in helping Russian nationals secure U.S. citizenship for their children. When we start to see foreign nationals securing U.S. citizenship for their children but with no intention of staying here or actually assimilating into our society and pledging allegiance to our Constitution and laws, it becomes clear that something is terribly wrong. Citizenship in this country, the greatest country in the world, is a great privilege. And the practice of birth tourism undermines what it means to be an American. This is why I am introducing the BACK OFF Act which will make aliens involved in birth tourism inadmissible and deportable from the United States. This bill would also require the Department of Homeland Security to detain aliens who commit crimes related to birth tourism. It would require anyone engaged in this practice who entered the United States from Mexico or Canada to return to those countries for legal proceedings while they are pending, which would prevent them from actually giving birth here in the United States while they await the decision of their case. And it would also prevent people from using the Biden-era Visa Waiver Program to give birth in U.S. territories. This legislation would create new criminal penalties and enforcement actions against those running birth tourism rings, including new criminal penalties under the Immigration and Nationality Act for those who facilitate this practice. Finally, it would create a task force to investigate and refer cases to the Department of Justice for prosecution involving individuals and organizations that are involved in birth tourism schemes. There is no greater privilege in the world than to be a citizen of this great country, and we must treat U.S. citizenship as such. But the practice of birth tourism trivializes this great privilege, and I hope the Senate will adopt my legislation to crack down on this atrocity.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on another matter, I am introducing a bill called the Barring American Citizenship by Keeping Out Foreign Fraudsters or the BACK OFF Act. This bill is designed to address a problem that has been festering in our country for some time, and that is the crime of birth tourism. In the United States, we grant citizenship to virtually everyone born on U.S. soil except for children born to diplomats and a few other categories. And indeed, there is a case now pending in the U.S. Supreme Court to determine what the breadth and depth of what that birthright citizenship should look like under the Constitution. But America is one of the few countries to allow individuals to obtain citizenship at birth regardless of parentage or immigration status, and our generosity was never meant to be exploited by our adversaries. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that some of these individuals may even use this cover of citizenship in order to engage in espionage against the United States, indeed, especially the People's Republic of China. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, more than 30,000 births in the United States each year are to women on tourist visas, while many more are born to women who are here illegally or people who simply overstay their temporary visa. Worse, entire cottage industries have sprung up over the past several decades designed to actually help facilitate foreign nationals to visit the United States on a temporary basis solely to obtain the coveted privilege of U.S. citizenship for their children. In 2020, a report from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee found that several companies--these are businesses-- several companies existed to assist individuals trying to exploit America's generosity in this regard. One such company, Ada International, worked largely with Chinese individuals while another was known as Miami Mama, which specialized in helping Russian nationals secure U.S. citizenship for their children. When we start to see foreign nationals securing U.S. citizenship for their children but with no intention of staying here or actually assimilating into our society and pledging allegiance to our Constitution and laws, it becomes clear that something is terribly wrong. Citizenship in this country, the greatest country in the world, is a great privilege. And the practice of birth tourism undermines what it means to be an American. This is why I am introducing the BACK OFF Act which will make aliens involved in birth tourism inadmissible and deportable from the United States. This bill would also require the Department of Homeland Security to detain aliens who commit crimes related to birth tourism. It would require anyone engaged in this practice who entered the United States from Mexico or Canada to return to those countries for legal proceedings while they are pending, which would prevent them from actually giving birth here in the United States while they await the decision of their case. And it would also prevent people from using the Biden-era Visa Waiver Program to give birth in U.S. territories. This legislation would create new criminal penalties and enforcement actions against those running birth tourism rings, including new criminal penalties under the Immigration and Nationality Act for those who facilitate this practice. Finally, it would create a task force to investigate and refer cases to the Department of Justice for prosecution involving individuals and organizations that are involved in birth tourism schemes. There is no greater privilege in the world than to be a citizen of this great country, and we must treat U.S. citizenship as such. But the practice of birth tourism trivializes this great privilege, and I hope the Senate will adopt my legislation to crack down on this atrocity.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this week, the Senate adopted the resolution allowing for the consideration of another block or package of nominations, and I want to take a moment to highlight two of these exceptional nominees that President Trump has asked to help him lead portions of the Federal Government. Of course, we wouldn't be in a position of having to introduce nominations en bloc or en masse if our Senate Democrats would allow us to vote on these nominees on a timely basis, but Trump derangement syndrome is real which means they won't cooperate with even the smallest courtesies that we used to extend to one another, recognizing that eventually the majority will get its way. Former State Senator, Texas State Senator Brian Birdwell who has been nominated by President Trump to be Assistant Secretary of War for Sustainment is one of Texas' finest sons and one of America's true heroes. On September 11, Brian was working at the Pentagon when American Airlines Flight 77 deliberately crashed by terrorists into the building just yards from his office. Brian was critically injured, as you might imagine, and yet he survived after enduring 39 surgeries and unimaginable pain. He turned that survival into a lifetime of service. He served in the U.S. Army for 20 years. And for the past 16 years, he has represented the Texas State Senate District 22 with distinction and honor. We will miss Brian in the State Senate, but the Nation is gaining a proven leader at the Pentagon. I congratulate Brian and his wife Mel. I thank them for continued service, and I look forward to continuing to working with him now in this new capacity at the Department of War.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have three requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as I listen to our colleague, he basically says: The perfect is the enemy of the good. So the good thing about this legislation is it would protect a lot of innocent, vulnerable children, something the Biden administration turned a blind eye to during 4 years of its open border policies. There is untold misery and hardship for these children who came here to the United States because the Biden administration said: If you come by yourself, we are going to turn you loose and let you into the country. So desperate parents sent their children from faraway places to come to the United States, only to be placed with individuals who were not properly vetted and certainly households that could have involved sexual offenders and other predators--and crimes. We don't know how many of them were recruited into gangs, trafficked for sex or involuntary labor. This is a catastrophe that I think we have only begun to understand. Now, thank goodness, Tom Homan and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement have rescued many of these children, but nowhere near the number that have been released into the country by the Biden administration. I don't know how much longer we can continue to turn a blind eye to the harm being caused to these children under the pretense of open borders and generous immigration policies. It is hardly generous to condemn a child to a life of sex trafficking or to be an object of harm from a person who wants to take advantage of them for labor or sexual favors or you name it. So I think it is beyond disappointing that we have an objection to this, and I find the excuses given by our colleague from Connecticut to be just insufficient. By not vetting the sponsors who received these unaccompanied children, the Biden administration encouraged and incentivized the irresponsible treatment of these kids. We don't know if they went to school. We don't know if they got the healthcare that they need in order to stay healthy. We don't know. And the Biden administration took the outrageous position that it is not their responsibility. Once the kids came to the United States and were placed with the sponsor, the Biden administration went: Our job is done. And now it is up to the child protective services in the various States to look after these kids. Well, we know child protective services in the States are generally overwhelmed anyway. And to say that we have to wait for a child to be killed, raped, murdered, denied access to basic healthcare and education services before we can help them out is outrageous. The only way to prevent this from happening in the future is to enforce our laws and to know who the adults are who are claiming these children and make sure they aren't a threat to their health, safety, and welfare. Our children should not have to continue to pay the price for adults who break the law. And releasing minors into the custody of criminals is certainly not the answer.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to seek unanimous consent that the Senate pass H.R. 4371, the House companion to my Kayla Hamilton Act, which passed the House with bipartisan support. This bill is named in honor of Kayla Hamilton, a young woman who was viciously murdered by an MS-13 gang member. This criminal entered the United States as an unaccompanied minor and was released into the custody of an unvetted sponsor. Kayla's death is a tragedy. I had the honor of meeting her mother Tammy Nobles--one of the Angel Moms who came and testified at a hearing I held last summer. Kayla's murder highlights how irresponsible the Biden administration was in handling unaccompanied minors entering the United States during President Biden's 4 years in office. By some accounts, there were as many as a half a million unaccompanied minors who came into the United States during the Biden administration's open border policy and then were placed with sponsors, many of whom were unvetted. Many of these so-called unaccompanied children were 17-year-old boys--almost fully grown men. Unfortunately, many of the children--the more vulnerable children-- were released to unvetted sponsors, and that should be illegal. If we are going to care about our children who are the most vulnerable among us, which is really how a society is judged--how we treat the most vulnerable people in our society--then releasing children to unvetted sponsors should be a crime. While Health and Human Services has reformed its policies under President Trump, the careless and, I would say, reckless way that unaccompanied minors were handled by the Biden administration was shameful. My bill requires HHS, Health and Human Services, to obtain information about potential sponsors and any person who lives in the sponsor's household before a child is placed with them. It was common practice for the Biden administration to so call vet the named sponsor but yet not everybody else living in that household who could be a sexual predator or could have another criminal record or could be a threat--an immediate and real threat--to that child. But this bill requires HHS to obtain information about potential sponsors and any person--all persons--who live in that sponsor's household before a child is placed with them, and it bars criminal alien sponsors from being allowed to assume custody of these children. This bill also requires Health and Human Services to conduct mandatory checks on all unaccompanied children, including considering whether an unaccompanied child poses a danger to themselves or the community--contacting the consulate or embassy or their home country and vetting them for ties to criminal organizations. As I said, some of these children were very vulnerable, but others were almost grown men in many instances. And without proper vetting of these unaccompanied children--a child, of course, is anybody under the age of 18--that, in and of itself, is a danger that should stop. It is only common sense that we should not place our children in the custody of criminals, and we should also vet the unaccompanied minors themselves, including for ties to gangs and existing criminal histories. I urge the adoption of this legislation. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4371, which was received from the House; and, further, I ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about a law that most people will have never heard of, but it is very, very important to our national security. That is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA as we sometimes refer to it. We are approaching the expiration of this section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act later this week, and time's a-wastin' for us to get this actually done. I know it is important for us to have debates and offer constructive suggestions about changes in these laws, but we cannot risk going dark on this essential intelligence-gathering law, which actually has empowered President Trump to help keep the country safe. Without getting into the merits of one of these proposals or another, let me just take a step back and talk about the importance of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and national security. One of the major misconceptions about this is it is a law enforcement tool, but it is not. It is not primarily a law enforcement tool. Now, it is illegal to commit espionage in this country, but the main reason this is used is to collect information from people overseas on national security threats to the United States. And it allows the intelligence community to connect the dots to understand what our adversaries are up to. FISA was enacted in 1978 in order to provide more transparency and avoid overreach of surveillance of domestic actors. If you read the history of the FBI going back to the J. Edgar Hoover days, there was a lot of things that the FBI was doing under J. Edger Hoover that today we would blanch at and certainly consider illegal when it regards surveillance of U.S. persons. So FISA was enacted to make sure that we did not allow any unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens, but we did preserve the ability to gain information about foreign actors overseas on potential national security threats to the United States. Section 702, which is the provision that expires in a very short time now, was first enacted in 2008, and as I said, authorizes the U.S. Government to target foreign--hence, the name--the word ``foreign'' in the FISA--foreign intelligence collection of non-U.S. persons. Now, that is a bureaucratic way of just saying: American citizens are--you cannot surveil American citizens no matter where they are, even if they are overseas. It only authorizes surveillance of foreign intelligence collection for non-U.S. persons overseas outside of the United States. Unlike traditional criminal investigations where warrants are issued based on probable cause--that is, showing a probable cause to a judge that a crime has been committed, thus justifying issuance of a warrant to then search or collect information here in America--unlike that, intelligence gathering is significantly different because it involves the monitoring of foreign intelligence to detect and prevent threats before they happen. So our criminal justice system is designed to investigate and prosecute crimes that occur after they happen. But the intelligence community needs these tools like FISA to be able to prevent bad things from happening. So it is forward-leaning rather than retrospective. President Trump has asked Congress to reauthorize this essential authority, as the current law properly balances intelligence needs with privacy protections of U.S. citizens. Let me just put a finer point on that. To allow this to expire would be an affront to the President; but also, it would essentially blind the President to this essential intelligence that he uses on a daily basis in his President's Daily Brief. Many folks are familiar with the fact that the President gets intelligence briefings on a daily basis, and it is called the PDR, President's Daily--PDB, excuse me, the President's Daily Brief. So the intelligence Agencies--notably the CIA or the Director of National Intelligence--will brief the President on national security threats. Mr. President, 60 percent--60 percent--of the information contained in the President's Daily Brief is a product of section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. So to allow that to expire would basically handicap the President in terms of getting access to the information he needs in order to work within and U.S. Government to keep the public and our Nation safe. So 60 percent of the President's Daily Brief is a product of 702 of FISA. In 2025, a quarter--25 percent--of the national security Agencies-- that is our Signals Intelligence Agency--25 percent of their reports were comprised of information gathered under section 702. This information, of course, has allowed the U.S. Government to thwart terrorist attacks and to make sure that we protect the public at large. It has also helped us find and rescue American hostages and much more. In April of 2024, Congress responded to the concerns that some had raised about privacy of U.S. citizens by passing the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, the RISAA. RISAA, I guess. I am not sure how to pronounce it, but that is the acronym; RISAA, Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act. So these concerns which led to these reforms included incidents such as unlawful targeting of Carter Page, a Trump campaign aide, during the run-up to the President's election in 2016. But that is a different section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Obviously, Carter Page was an American citizen, and based on what I have said--you have heard me say--you can't surveil American citizens, whether they are at home or abroad without a warrant. So this would not apply to the Carter Page case; although, I agree it was an abomination where an FBI lawyer basically misrepresented the facts to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court who then issued a warrant on Carter Page. And the Justice Department has since admitted that it did not have probable cause to surveil him. So a different section--section 702 is different from the Carter Page example. So the R-I-S-A-A--RISAA--was crafted to address past abuses of the foreign intelligence surveillance authorities and privacy and civil liberty concerns while ensuring that the government had the capability in order to protect Americans from foreign threats. The provisions enacted into law have gone a long way to curb the likelihood of abuses that were happening under FISA authorities during the Obama and the Biden administrations. According to a recent report from the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the reforms that Congress passed under RISAA have had positive effects regarding the safeguarding of privacy and civil liberty. These included significant reforms to the way that the FBI can conduct U.S. person queries. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act section 702 is authorized overseas on a noncitizen, but if they communicate with an American citizen here in the United States, that information is maintained in a database by the intelligence Agencies. It is lawfully collected information, not for the purposes of a criminal investigation, but for purposes of collecting intelligence to be able to connect the dots and protect the Nation. Targeting refers to the actual collection of data on non-U.S. persons abroad who may be potential threats. While querying--or looking into-- the data that is collected in that process is different. It is worth repeating again. Only non-U.S. persons abroad may be targeted under 702. But RISAA, the reforms, include stronger oversight measures and consequences for violations of these new requirements, which is entirely appropriate. Part of this is not only to address potential violations but also to build the public's confidence that their own government is not spying on them as I have heard some people suggest. But perhaps the most significant reforms in RISAA were how these queries of lawfully collected information were conducted. Due to new requirements from RISAA, queries of U.S. persons already collected-- lawfully collected--information are now even further restricted and subject to three reviews. That is sort of a belt-and-suspenders approach to making sure we protect American citizens. Since 2023, the total number of queries of U.S. persons has dropped by 87 percent. According to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, within the first year after the enactment of these reforms, more than 98 percent of the FBI's queries of already lawfully collected information weren't compliant with these new requirements. The report concludes that, while the implementation of these reforms are still being studied, it is clear they are having a positive effect on the privacy of American citizens. Furthermore, FISA remains a very important tool that the U.S. Government uses in order to support our national security, which is why President Trump has been so adamant that we need to get this law reauthorized and not let it go dark. Last March, CIA Director John Ratcliffe testified that 70 percent of his Agency's success in countering advanced weapons proliferation and 90 percent of their success in interdicting synthetic drugs like fentanyl were the result of information acquired by using section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Section 702 allows the U.S. Government to vet foreign persons seeking to enter the United States for connections to terrorism and international drug trafficking operations. It is also a critical tool for combatting cyber threats. Section 702 proved particularly useful for the U.S. Government's efforts to crack down on illicit drug trafficking into the country. This intelligence has helped the United States, together with our friends, to identify the supply chain for precursor chemicals coming from China and used to make synthetic drugs like fentanyl in Mexico. And it also has allowed the intelligence Agencies to seize machinery in China that would have been able to produce millions of pills per hour-- these pill pressers, these automated pill pressers. Section 702 also allows our Border Patrol to seize these pill pressers at the border. Reports indicate that 90 percent of the CIA's successful interdiction of synthetic drugs like fentanyl is attributable to section 702. So some people are suggesting it ought to go dark; we ought not to extend it. It makes no sense when you begin to look at how effective it has been in keeping the country safe. Section 702 is also important in counterterrorism. Information acquired under that section has allowed the FBI to identify a potential terrorist threat, in October of 2023, related to the Israel-Gaza conflict. The FBI was able to warn the Department of Defense and the relevant host nations about this threat against American troops. In another instance, section 702 allowed the United States to discover and thwart a planned terrorist attack against a high-profile concert in Europe. These are just a couple of examples--of numerous examples--of ways section 702 has helped the United States protect our citizens against foreign threats. And no one knows that better than President Trump, who is the daily consumer of this information. Again, 60 percent of his daily intelligence brief is composed of section 702 intelligence. And, of course, the President is responsible for the protection of all of our citizens and U.S. interests, and that is why he has asked us to reauthorize this critical authority. President Trump recently wrote on Truth Social to say: With the ongoing successful military activities against the Terrorist Iranian Regime, it is more important than ever that we remain vigilant, PROTECT our Homeland, Troops, and Diplomats stationed abroad, and maintain our ability to quickly stop bad actors seeking to cause harm to our People and our Country. After 4 years of weakness under President Biden, President Trump is showing the world that the United States is, once again, a power to be dealt with. It is imperative we equip the President and the entire administration, working with Congress in an oversight capacity, like on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on which I serve. It is important that we equip the Trump administration with the tools and authorities they need to maintain deterrence and, hopefully, peace through strength. We cannot allow this authority to expire. It would be foolhardy and reckless to do so. So President Trump has asked us to reauthorize FISA section 702, and I hope all of our colleagues in both Chambers will not tie the President's hands behind his back while we have Americans in active combat overseas. And we need this essential intelligence in order to protect our people and our homeland. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I rise to honor a program that has helped shape generations of Texans who come to Washington not simply to observe public service, but to participate. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Archer Fellowship Program and the Archer Center in Washington, DC. Founded in 2001 by Congressman Bill Archer and his longtime chief of staff Don Carlson, the Archer Center is ``where Texas meets the world'' and provides talented students from across the University of Texas System the chance to live, learn, and intern in the Nation's Capital. The Archer Center's mission is to educate the next generation of leaders and promote civic engagement, civil discourse, and public service. These foundational principles have united our country for 250 years, and it is essential now more than ever to instill them in our students. Archer Fellows engage in full-time internships aligned with their goals while participating in coursework that connects their daily experiences to the larger policy process, giving students the opportunity to fully grasp the day-to-day realities of working in public policy. Over the past quarter-century, the Archer Center has cultivated a network of more than 2,000 alumni who now serve in a wide range of roles and impact various communities. Many students intern in Texas congressional offices, including my own, and consistently reflect the Archer Center's values of professionalism, curiosity, and respect in their hard work. I am proud to note that a former member of my staff serves as the Archer Center's longtime executive director and has been a driving force behind its success over the past 20 years. Katie Romano served as a communications intern during my 2002 U.S. Senate campaign before joining my Washington, DC, office as constituent relations coordinator in 2003. She then went on to work for Mrs. Laura Bush and the First Family during the 2004 election and contributed to the 55th Presidential Inaugural Committee before joining the Archer Center staff in 2006. Her positive contributions to the Archer Center are evident, and I am proud of the impact she continues to have on our fellow Texans. Preparing young people for public service is not a task to be taken for granted. Institutions must be willing to invest in mentorship and create an environment where students learn how to engage in disagreement without losing respect for one another. That is exactly the kind of preparation the Archer Center seeks to provide, and it is why this milestone deserves recognition. So today I want to commend the Archer Center's students, alumni, faculty, and staff, and recognize those who teach, mentor, and support the program. Congratulations to the Archer Center on 25 years of service to Texas and to our country. Thank you for helping students from across the UT System come to Washington to chart a lifetime of service to our Nation and the great State of Texas.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we are almost at the end of April, and the Department of Homeland Security has been shuttered since February. It is incredible to me that at a time when the geopolitics of the world make the likelihood of domestic terrorist attacks greater than usual, that our Democratic colleagues would simply reflexively oppose funding for the Department of Homeland Security because they don't believe immigration laws should be enforced. It is absurd that they have taken this approach to voice their opposition to President Trump, which maybe explains everything because the first question, it seems like, in their mind is: If President Trump wants it, maybe we should oppose it, which has been consistent with their behavior. But it is time for this nonsense to end for a variety of reasons. I just came from a Judiciary Committee hearing on intellectual property theft and espionage from the People's Republic of China, among other adversaries. And one of the things that I am not sure people recognize is that the chief civilian cyber security Agency of the Federal Government is housed within the Department of Homeland Security--CISA, it is called. They have currently furloughed 60 percent of their staff because Democrats refuse to fund the Department of Homeland Security because they are mad that President Trump is keeping his commitment to enforce our immigration laws. So, again: collateral damage to many unintended targets, but this is what happens when mindless partisanship prevails. The American people, of course, voted to elect President Trump, and one of the main reasons was because he was very clear about where he stood on open borders and on the failure of the Biden administration to enforce our immigration laws. So, now, the Democrats have shut down the Department to try to prevent him from carrying out his mandate. At the end of our last session, the Senate finally came together on a plan to reopen the Department of Homeland Security. I was proud to vote yes. It seemed like a no-brainer. But, unfortunately, the House did not agree. Unfortunately, I think they misunderstood what we had actually done because we had prefunded ICE and Customs and Border Protection in the Working Families Tax Cut bill because we anticipated that they might pull this kind of stunt. Well, unfortunately, that funding is now stalled in the House. Speaker Johnson, of course, has his own constraints, given a one-seat majority and the fact that Democrats won't cooperate even on commonsense things like funding the Department of Homeland Security. But I hope that he will continue to try to pick up the torch and pass this bill so this shutdown can end--this mindless partisanship that has caused this shutdown. President Trump, Leader Thune, and Chairman Graham have decided that we will keep the current budget resolution focused like a laser on funding Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security generally so we can do that by the deadline that President Trump set of June 1. None of this would be necessary if Democrats would come to their senses and just simply--we can fight about the role that Immigration and Customs Enforcement plays. We can fight about the policies that guide them. But they are, in fact, enforcing laws that Congress has passed. Yet they want to make them the scapegoat for enforcing immigration laws. And, again, this appears to me to be nothing more than a continuation of their efforts to maintain open borders and to deny enforcement of immigration laws. But as we are considering a budget reconciliation bill, hopefully, once we get this accomplished here in the next few weeks, it will give us enough time before the end of this fiscal year to consider a third reconciliation vehicle to accomplish additional Republican priorities. And there are some important provisions I would like to see included in that next reconciliation bill--again, anticipating no cooperation at all from our Democratic colleagues. One of those priorities for me is to permanently defund Planned Parenthood. Respect for life has always been and always will be a pillar of the conservative movement and the Republican Party platform. We are the pro-life party. Many great minds have said before that civilization should be measured by the way we treat our most vulnerable, and I believe that to be true. And it is hard to imagine anyone more vulnerable than an unborn, helpless child. In fact, our founding document--the Declaration of Independence-- states that the right to life is an inalienable right that all of us are granted by our Creator. I am proud to be a member of a party that acknowledges the right to life as a God-given gift. Republicans can and should deliver a win for the unborn as part of our next reconciliation bill by defunding, on a permanent basis, the Nation's largest abortion provider. When Republicans assembled the One Big Beautiful Bill, or the Working Families Tax Cut Act, last summer, we successfully included a 1-year ban on Medicaid funding for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. Now, here we are approaching the end of that year, and this provision will soon expire. We have our work cut out for us again to ensure that this monstrous organization does not receive another dime of taxpayer money. Of course, like any entity that receives government funding, Planned Parenthood has a team of lobbyists and public affairs officials whose job it is to convince lawmakers and the public that they are worthy recipients of public funding. Planned Parenthood would like all of us to believe they are primarily a healthcare organization, providing women's health services. But the truth is that is not the case; it is a pretext. Their own 2024-2025 annual report states that Planned Parenthood performed more than 400,000 abortions in the previous fiscal year--400,000 abortions. We know that all the money that organizations like Planned Parenthood receive are fungible. In other words, they can trade one dollar for another dollar, depending on the source of that money. When Planned Parenthood receives Medicaid reimbursements for services other than abortions, that money ultimately finds its way into helping their bottom line and directly subsidizing a procedure that ends a human life. If that were not enough, Planned Parenthood is not only an abortion provider, but they have recently become entwined with the business of providing gender transition treatments to minors. Planned Parenthood's own reporting brags that, in some States, their so-called gender- affirming care--what a euphemism that is--that their gender-affirming care visits increased by more than 500 percent between 2021 and 2022. Other organizations have also reported that Planned Parenthood exploits legal loopholes in order to provide gender transition medications to minors without their parents even knowing. Nearly 60 percent--and I am surprised the number isn't higher--nearly 60 percent of Americans oppose gender transition procedures for minors. You know, when you are young and have not yet matured, your brain is not completely developed. These children are incapable of making these life-changing decisions for themselves, and the business of government and the business of organizations like Planned Parenthood shouldn't be to exploit the youth of these children, to change the trajectory of their life forever. In recent years, the scientific community has also expressed its own concerns. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons released a statement earlier this year recommending against gender transition surgeries for minors. Their statement emphasized the lack of long-term research to support this medical intervention, as well as ethical concerns surrounding potential harms and the fact that adolescents don't have the capacity to fully consent to these harms. Other Western countries, including the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, are also taking steps to restrict these operations. The least the U.S. Congress could do would be to halt government funding for providers of these controversial procedures and related treatments that rest on a dubious--if maybe even nonexistent--scientific backing. Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the Nation and the leading provider of youth gender transition therapies, should not receive a dime--a dime--of taxpayer funding. The second reconciliation bill, focused as it is on ICE and CBP and the Department of Homeland Security, cannot be our last bill this year. I urge my Republican colleagues to come together on a third reconciliation bill once we have completed this bill so we can notch another win for the pro-life and the pro-commonsense movement. Again, it is only common sense that our Republican majority should use the power we have to defund Planned Parenthood using the tools available to us, like reconciliation. Defending the right to life has been a longstanding priority of our party, and Republicans ought to deliver another victory for the unborn. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate a historic milestone in one of our Nation's oldest diplomatic partnerships as we look toward America's 250th anniversary. Recently, in The Hague, Netherlands, the United States Ambassador's residence was officially designated as Adams House. This designation honors a remarkable legacy of American statesmanship, that of our second President John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams. In 1782, as the foundations of our Republic were still being laid, the elder Adams secured the Dutch recognition and financial support that proved essential to our independence. He knew then, as we hold true today, that American liberty is fortified by strong, principled alliances. This house further honors the torch passed to his son John Quincy Adams, who served as U.S. Minister Resident to the Netherlands before his own storied tenure as Secretary of State and our sixth President. For my fellow Texans, this relationship is not just a matter of history; it is a cornerstone of our modern prosperity. The Netherlands is one of the top foreign investors in the State of Texas. From the energy corridors of the Gulf Coast to the tech hubs in Austin, Dutch innovation and Texas industry work hand-in-hand. We even see this heritage in the names of our own communities, like Nederland, TX, founded by Dutch settlers whose legacy of hard work and resilience remains part of the fabric of our State. As we celebrate the 250th anniversary of our Nation, Adams House serves as a permanent reminder that our diplomatic presence in The Hague was the first building the United States ever owned on foreign soil. It is a symbol of a friendship that has never broken. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this designation and in reaffirming the vital strategic, economic, and cultural bond between the United States and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we can do what the Senator from New Mexico suggests. We can have a discussion about what would be an appropriate way to recognize the contribution of farmworkers in this country without honoring a monster in the process.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, so if I understand the Senator correctly, on the same day that two Members of Congress have resigned as a result of sexual misconduct, we are going to not address this travesty that Cesar Chavez has inflicted upon his victims--women and children--out of concern for the farmworkers movement. Now, I am happy to work with the Senator to try to reflect on that history, but you can't separate the name of Cesar Chavez from this movement because it is his house, and it is his grave site and memorial garden. Our colleague says: Well, we are going to shut it down and do a study. Well, that is not good enough. He also will strip out the money that would otherwise go to the Debbie Smith Act, which I have worked on for many years now, honoring Debbie Smith, who championed the testing of rape kits that had been sitting in evidence lockers for many years. This is a very important part of our service to these victims of sexual abuse. I think it is entirely appropriate that the money that comes from this monument go to help fund future victims of sexual assault. One of Cesar Chavez's victims was just 13 years old when he sexually assaulted her in his office, which is where this site is located. This is literally a crime scene. He was 45 years old and a world-famous political figure, but she was just a child. He used his home office to rape and molest her repeatedly over the coming years. She contemplated suicide and lived in terror for more than half a century before coming public about it. But thanks to her courage and the courage of many other brave survivors, we now know the truth about Cesar Chavez. I say this with all due respect to the Senator from New Mexico, but his amendment is an insult to the countless victims of Cesar Chavez's sexual misconduct. Instead of taking action to end taxpayer funding celebrating this predator, for a monument to honor their abuser, his amendment would simply require the government to shut down the monument to public access while the government does a report. In other words, his amendment would ask my constituents and all Americans to continue paying their hard-earned money to preserve this crime scene celebrating a serial child rapist. This amendment would also deny justice to, as I said, future sexual assault survivors by stopping the redirection of funds to the Debbie Smith rape kit backlog elimination program. In other words, his amendment would protect the legacy of Cesar Chavez and does nothing to honor sexual assault survivors. This is the kind of political gamesmanship that makes people hate Washington-- pretending to be concerned about an issue but yet doing nothing, absolutely nothing, to address it. We don't need a report or a further study to delay action. We know that Cesar Chavez's victims--from his victims that he was a sexual predator. I choose to believe those victims, and I hope the Senator from New Mexico does as well. We should completely defund, permanently close, and divest this monument and use the savings to prevent future serial rapists from escaping justice. I object.