Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages S1347-S1348]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Government Funding
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, late last night, we received the text of
the appropriations agreement to fund the remaining portions of the
government through the end of this fiscal year, which is through the
end of September.
We were successful in doing something that we had not done in a long
time previously, which was to fund 75 percent of the Federal
Government, leaving 25 percent remaining. Unfortunately, the remaining
25 percent was held hostage to this unreasonable and unnecessary debate
over whether we should fund border security. I say the debate was
unnecessary because I thought that we all shared a conviction that it
was important to secure our border.
It is important to note that most of the bill that we will vote on
later today has been out in the public domain for more than 6 months.
It is the product of bipartisan deliberation by the Appropriations
Committee and has been available to any Senator who might want to be
acquainted with the details.
The part that is relatively new is the detail relative to border
security. I am pleased that, notwithstanding Speaker Pelosi's statement
that physical barriers are somehow immoral, this does authorize and
fund up to 55 miles of additional fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.
I believe that border security consists of three components: physical
barriers in hard-to-control locations; technology, which is important
as a force multiplier; and then, of course, the boots on the ground--
the Border Patrol agents, who are absolutely essential. I am pleased to
say that this piece of legislation incorporates all
[[Page S1348]]
three of those components of what makes up smart and sensible border
security.
I am also happy to see that the initial demands made by our
colleagues across the aisle that we limit the number of detention beds
are not in this bill and that law enforcement can continue to detain
people with criminal records who happen to be illegally in this country
so that we can discourage and deter further illegal immigration.
One of the worst aspects of our broken immigration system is this
notion of catch-and-release. During the George W. Bush administration,
I remember talking to Secretary Chertoff about this huge upsurge in
Brazilians coming across our border. I asked Secretary Chertoff why we
were seeing all these Brazilians coming. He said it was catch-and-
release. They knew that if there were no penalty associated with coming
across or if they wouldn't be detained, there was no deterrence.
I am glad to see that this appropriations bill, which will prevent
another government shutdown, contains no cap on detention beds to
detain criminal aliens and others who are exploiting vulnerabilities in
our immigration system.
I would say, though, one of the things that is notably absent in this
bill is an extension of the Violence Against Women Act, which provides
resources to assist women who are victims of domestic violence and
sexual assault. Republicans made absolutely clear from the get-go that
we wanted to extend the current law. I am incredulous that our
Democratic colleagues objected to extending the current law, the
Violence Against Women Act.
It is really hard for me to believe that Speaker Pelosi and House
Democrats object to a modest extension of this critical legislation,
which helped countless victims receive the support they need, but
because of the political jockeying, the Violence Against Women Act will
expire at midnight tomorrow. There were two options available to us.
One was to provide an extension through the end of the fiscal year--
through the end of September--which would have allowed us to work on a
long-term reauthorization under regular order. The second option, which
our Democratic colleagues chose, is to do nothing and let this
important legislation expire while trying to plot out a long-term plan.
The choice seemed pretty obvious to me, but apparently not to Speaker
Pelosi and not to the Democratic leader here in the Senate.
Since my days as attorney general, I have long been a believer in
advocating for victims' rights. I am beyond disappointed that we have
ended up in this situation. It is shameful to play politics with the
Violence Against Women Act. But because of their obstruction, this
important resource for victims across the country will lapse tomorrow
night at midnight.
