frequently structuring its overreach to prevent any potential plaintiff from having legal standing to sue in court. this white house has even used its role in the legislative process to advance provisions that eliminate the potential for judicial review. as it did in dodd-frank. and when the courts have found legitimate occasion to scrutinize president obama's overreach, the administration has often fought to keep litigants out of court, as in the fast and furious litigation. perhaps most disturbing is what happened with the d.c. circuit, the second-most important court in the land that oversees our massive regulatory state, the court that originally held the president's appointments unconstitutional. when the d.c. circuit tried to hold the obama administration accountable to the law and the constitution, president obama and his allies sought, in their

own words, to -- quote -- "switch the majority" on the court and to -- quote -- "fill up the d.c. circuit one way or another." and in the rush to eliminate any possible judicial obstacle to accountability by packing the d.c. circuit, the obama administration and its allies run roughshod over the rules and traditions of this body by blowing up the filibuster. whether through unilaterally changing the senate rules or abusing the recess appointment powers, the president and his allies have demonstrated a willingness to work untold and permanent damage to the institutions of this great body and to our constitutional system itself. madam president, with such a powerful and aggressive president, no single institution can restore the constitutional checks on president obama's often lawless exercise of power. restoring constitutional government will require great

effort by all of us -- the courts, the congress, and most importantly, the voting public. that's why it's essential for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up and defend the institutional prerogatives of the senate. that is every senator's sworn duty under the constitution. many of my colleagues, even those with whom i rarely agree, have the potential to be great senators, worthy stewards of this institution, zealous guardians of its prerogatives, and true defenders of its role in our constitutional system of government. but sadly, whether blinded bipartisan loyalty to the president or too inexperienced to understand the senate from any other perspective than having a like-minded senate majority and president, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have allowed, even facilitated this administration's attempts to break down the constitutional checks on executive power.

bob byrd must be rolling over in his grave. he would never have allowed the senate's power to be diluted and dissipated as has been during this presidency. he would have stood up to them, he would have taken the senate's prerogatives and made them very clear to this president and to anybody else who tried to invade the senate's prerogatives. and i, might add, constitutional prerogatives at that. we must all realize what is at stake. this is not some petty turf war. as madison warned in federalist 47 -- quote -- "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

to this regard, this central principle of constitutional government is to abolish the barriers protecting us from arbitrary government action and to undermine the rule of law. we in the congress should make no apology for protecting the legal prerogatives of the body in which we serve. for as madison counseled in federalist 51 -- quote -- "the great security against a gradual concentration of several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others." if this body and constitutional government generally are to maintain a meaningful role in preserving liberty, we must all realize the importance of checking the president's unlawful, and illegitimate attempts to assert power. and we must use the rightful and

legitimate constitutional authorities that the founders gave us to stand up and fight back. this is important. this isn't just a battle between the two sides. this isn't just a itty-bitty little problem. this is one that has really thwarted the intentions of the founders to have three separated powers, each with its own duties and responsibilities not infringed by the other powers who disregard those duties and responsibilities of the legislative branch. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, it's always rewarding to see people go on to bigger and better things. in their careers. unless, of course, you depend on them.

and for almost my entire time as leader here in this body, yoarl, one of the people that i've depended on is meredith melody. isn't that a great name, meredith melody who has been an important part of the democratic floor staff during that entire time. so for eight years she spent here in the senate, late hours, here on the floor, sending lee among other things the little wrap-up, she did that for a while, what happened during the day, tedious but it's important, i read it every day. and she's been in the cloakroom making sure that the wheels of this body continue turning. she is -- comes from a political family. she comes, as i recall, from scranton, and anyway, i'm grateful for her hard work. and her dedication over the

years. we all depend on her and have depended on her, and are equally thankful for her service. it's obvious i've talked too much today. she's leaving the senate to pursue opportunities in the prierkt and that's -- private sector, and that's important. but the main reason she's leaving that i don't question in any way and recognizing this as very important to her and plainly the most important thing she's ever done, if not the most important thing, she's going to get married. so i'm -- i've already congratulated her but it's really sad to see these people that become part of our family go. she's going to be successful in her future endeavors in the private sector.

i certainly wish you, meredith, the best in the future. you're a wonderful person, you're kind, thoughtful, and considerate always and never rude always, the pressure that's on each of you to do this yesterday, do it right now, and do it sooner than you're capable of doing it, you've always been polite and never rude to anyone, and so i'm grateful to you for your service to the senate and in doing that you served the country. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to a period of morning business. during that period of time that senators be allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. 2076, calendar number 375. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 375, s. 2076, a bill to amend the provisions of title 46, united

states code, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding on the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the boozman amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask consent that the senate move to calendar number 431. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 431, s. 1799, a bill to reauthorize subtitle a of the victims of child abuse act of 1990. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding on the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the substitute amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time, passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar number 439. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 439,

h.r. 2388, an act to take certain federal lands located in el dorado county, california, into trust for the benefit of the shingle springs band of muak indians, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding on the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask that the bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, there being no intervening action or debate, and i ask unanimous consent that that occur. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the following resolutions -- s. res. 490, 491, 492 and 493. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measures en bloc. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles where applicable be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on

the table en bloc and there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of s. res. 494. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 494, relative to the death of howard h. baker jr., former united states senator for the state of tennessee. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there being no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i'm told that s. 12562 has been introduced today. if that is the case, it is due for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title for the first time. the clerk: s. 2562, a bill to provide an incentive for businesses to bring jobs back to america. mr. reid: i ask for a second reading but object to my own request.

the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming recess or adjournment of the senate, the president of the senate and the president pro tempore and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences or interparliament conference authorized by the law by concurrent action of the two houses or by order of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that during the adjournment or recess of the senate from thursday, june 26, through monday, july 7, senators levin and carper be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn and convene pro forma -- for pro forma sessions only with no business conducted on the following dates --

mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn and convene for pro forma sessions only with no business conducted on the following dates and times, and that following each pro forma session, the senate adjourn until the next pro forma session -- monday, june 30 at noon, thursday, july 3 at 1:30 p.m., and the senate adjourn on thursday, july 3, until 2:00 p.m. on monday, july 7, 2014. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 5:30 p.m., with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. that at 5:30 p.m., the senate

proceed to executive session to consider executive calendar number 738, that all postcloture time be considered expired and the senate vote on confirmation of the krause anonymous. further, that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and no further motion be in order to the nomination. that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. finally, that when the senate resumes legislative session, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 2363, the senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to s. 2363, the sportsman act. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: so, madam president, there will be two roll call votes at 5:30 p.m. on july 7. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the provisions of s. res. 494 as a further mark of respect in the memory of the late senator howard baker of tennessee. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate

stands adjourned until 12:00 noon on monday and does so pursuant to senate resolution 494 as a further mark of respect to the memory of senator howard to the memory of senator howard >> the u.s. senate today confirmed six executive-branch nominees, including two u.s. ambassador nominees for iraq and egypt. the chamber also voted to advance the nomination of attorney cheryl ann krause to serve on the third circuit u.s. court of appeals. the senate is of next week for the july 4th recess. watch live coverage when members return as always here on c-span2 ♪ >> what i have read here is a partially processed plant that i cut down into sections that are the right length fur hanging, and then i pick up all of the big families, and those are sent

to the families to make edibles. they get that for really good price for months. and then these little leaves here are that tight tramp, and that can be dried and made into joints were sent to that extraction and made into a passion that sort of thing. and then right here we have finished bud. this is sent over to cure and hang to dry and then to jordan buckets for a couple of weeks before they sell it in a dispensary. >> the recreational use an illegal sale of marijuana in colorado with your phone calls line friday morning seven to 10:00 eastern on c-span. >> 1971, august 15th, i think, on a sunday was very much one of those moments when richard nixon simply appeared on national television halfway through bonanza, great cowboy show, not really my time but may be viewers will remember that show.

he interrupted the show to say, we are not going to allow the dollar to be converted. this in many ways was one of the most significant events hoff among things that have happened in the history of money, and it was a decisive moment where essentially shut the gold window where people could not simply come into fort knox metaphorically and say, here is a hundred dollars. i want to get the gold value. that was as a consequence of the big bad problems of the american government. there were trying to fight the vietnam war and pay for the great society treated just did not work out. there was a deficit, a trade deficit. >> author and conservative member of british parliament talks about the history of money, its relationship to work, and how the to impact world wide free-market 79 at 2:00. and this month on our on line but club we are discussing the

forgotten man, a new history of the great depression. start reading and joined others to discuss the book and our chat room. book tv, television for serious readers. >> republican senators joined democratic senator dick durbin on the floor today to talk about immigration and unaccompanied migrant children crossing over the u.s. border. this is about an hour. mr. cornyn: thank you, madam president. madam president. >> thank you, madam president. i want to spend a few moments this morning talking about realistic solutions to the ongoing crisis along americans southern border. obviously, i come from a border state where we have 1200 miles of common border with the nation of mexico which, of course, has been the gateway now to this humanitarian wave of children, unaccompanied children coming from central america into the

united states. i will talk more about that in detail, but i first want to comment on something that the majority leader said this morning in his opening remarks. with what has now become a trademark hyperbole and frequently his disregard for the facts, the majority leader suggested the republican platform was deport first, find solutions later were never. i find that offensive and it is certainly not true. and i can just assume that the majority leader has had other things that have taken his attention and he has ignored completely the concrete solutions that i and others to been promoting, some of which i will talk about here and moment. but the last thing i would say specifically to this really offensive and untrue comment of the majority leader this morning is that if you are truly concerned about this issue, you

might want to focus on members of your own party. after all, no less than vice-president joe biden has said of the unaccompanied minors flooding across from the u.s.- mexican border, it is necessary to put them back in the hands of the parent in the country from which they can. now, he went on the set once an individual's case is fully heard ethier she does not qualify for asylum he or she will be removed from the united states and returned home. that is vice president biden. perhaps the majority leader should talk to him. should talk to a former senate colleague who said this about these on the company children. they should be sent back as soon as can be determined who responsible adults and their families are.

former secretary of state hillary clinton, in all likelihood the democratic party nominee for president of the united states in 2016, perhaps the majority leader's talk to her. or you can talk to the secretary of homeland security under his purview this issue falls most directly. under current u.s. loss and policies anyone who is apprehended crossing or border illegally is priority for deportation regardless of rage. perhaps the majority leader should pick up the phone and talk to him. ahoy rather than make offensive, politically motivated allegations, perhaps the majority leader should give us -- it is back straight, talk to leaders and as some political party, and then work with us on this side of the aisle to china find some real solutions rehab.

as the insurgency rages and the border is collapsed and the tension here in washington is turned to other parts of the globe, i can tell you here without a doubt that the attention of my constituents in taxes is still very much focused on what is happening in our southwestern border and this surge of unaccompanied minor children that are making a dangerous and treacherous journey from central america through mexico and ending up on our doorstep. first of all, the administration when this -- when the facts began to unfold said that human smuggling operations are responsible for creating a misinformation campaign which is why we're seeing this surge of unaccompanied minors. there may actually be an element of truth to that if you think about a.

human smuggling operations, drug cartels in the associated gangs make money on each and every migrant that passes through these corridors, human trafficking and smuggling. there probably are making more money than the people that come. that probably make more money the more children and women and other migrants in they kidnapped and hold for ransom. there is some element of that, but then we have been told by the administration that the search is entirely the result of gang violence and poverty in central america and that it has nothing to do with president obama's policies or his perceived commitment to our immigration laws, including the enforcement, but only the executive branch can do it. a few days ago, however,

secretary johnson, the secretary of homeland security, published what he called an open letter to the parents of children crossing hours of western borders in which he implicitly acknowledged that the president's immigration policies or the perception that he was < committed to enforcing those policies have, indeed, become a magnet for illegal border cross. secretary johnson felt compelled to inform his readers that the u.s. government's deferred action for a child of the rivals , often called dark and,

does not apply to a child who crosses the u.s. border illegally to bed. today tomorrow or yesterday. so it does not apply. secretary johnson reiterated this point in the very next paragraph when he said, there is no path to it deferred action or citizenship or one being contemplated by congress for a child who crosses our border illegally to the. now, if the sole driver of the border crisis was, in fact, central american violence and poverty were smuggling organizations then there is no reason to believe the secretary johnson needed to clarify the details of u.s. immigration policy. after all of the migrants search is nothing to do with u.s. policy as the white house initially insisted, then clarifying what that policy is

will not affect a little. but it has become simply undeniable that president obama's policies, including his unilateral deferred action program as well as the perception that he is less than seriously committed to enforcing current law and, in fact, has ordered secretary johnson to investigate or recommend a further relaxation of his enforcement policies. all of this is played as usual in creating the perception to tens of thousands of unaccompanied children that you should register live and travel unaccompanied in the hands of the cartels to the united states because there will be in the consequences associated with the it's the perception that the president continues to create by his silence, the magna for this illegal immigration.

don't take my word for it. according to an internal department of homeland security memo, it says, the main reason the subjects chose this particular time to migrate to the united states was to take advantage of the new u.s. law that grants a free pass a permanent. in other words, they came because of the widespread perception that unaccompanied minors and women traveling with children would be allowed to stay. even after crossing the border illegally. well, i think there is more to the story. in fact, what we learned is that women traveling with children are frequently given a notice to appear once they're processed by the border patrol, i notice to appear for a hearing of a court that would then determine any claims of asylum would then determine whether they can stay

in the united states are have to return to their country of origin. this is called a notice to appear. a strangely enough the vast majority of immigrants that given notice to appear never show of. it makes you wonder about the ones to do because there is absolutely no follow-through. this is what it is perceived, it permission or a free pass. meanwhile, a study of the department of homeland security office of science and technology director concluded that unaccompanied minors are aware of the rare relevant lack of consequences that they will receive when apprehended at the u.s. border. relative lack of consequences. in other words, nothing happens to them. if you make your, you will be

able to stay. that is the perception. again, it is puzzling to me that even though the a ministrations own documents show a clear reason for the surge, they initially continue to offer the public is shifting narrative. there is no doubt that drug and gang related violence of central america is bad. it's a matter of tremendous concern for u.s. policymakers, heartbreaking, and it is something that i propose we try to address. i had a great conversation on the floor a couple of days ago with the senior senator from california, some the feinstein who said, maybe there is something we can do is we have done in the past in countries like colombia, mexico, and elsewhere where we have worked with our partners to try to out them restore security and rule of law.

that is certainly something i look forward -- conversation i look forward to continuing. but the fact of the matter is, of violence in central america did not begin a couple of years ago. as a matter of fact, the murder rates and guatemala and el salvador were higher in 2009 than they were in 2012. but the massive spike in illegal immigration by an unaccompanied minors did not start until 2012. the very same year not coincidently when the president announced his unilateral deferred action programs, again, creating the perception that if you can hear you would be able to stay. there is no wonder the people felt like the floodgates have opened creating a humanitarian crisis and overwhelming the capacity of local, state, and federal authorities to deal with all these children.

by fiscal year 2013 the number of unaccompanied minors are grown to nearly 25,000 of from 6,502 years earlier. 6,525,000 in two years' time according to the new york times from october to june 15th 52,000 unaccompanied minors were, at the american border with mexico. twice the number for the same time in the previous year. there are estimates will could turn out to be 60,000 more. it could double next year. you begin to wonder where it ends, halogens. between the president's refusal to enforce our immigration laws and its ever shifting explanation as to the source of the ongoing crisis it's no

wonder that the president has lost some much credibility on this issue. indeed, if the president wants to know why he is not been able to pass immigration reform in the house and the senate, audience did his look at the fact that people lost confidence in his willingness to enforce law. the senior senator from new york has suggested we should pass an immigration law and just postpone its effective date until after president obama leaves office. i would say that is a shocking statement, it seems to me. that has been reiterated by the majority leader. an enormous amount of distrust about the federal government's commitment to enforce the law. i don't care what the law might ultimately be if the american people don't believe the president and the attorney general and the executive branch will enforceable. we have lost their confidence entirely and will never be able to improve and face are broken

immigration simpson. .. to do. but given all the different narratives coming out of the white house concerning the surge of unaccompanied minors, i think it would be a good thing for the president to directly address the issue. he's sent vice president biden to central america. that was a positive step. i know secretary johnson has visited the rio grande valley and some of these detention centers for unaccompanied minors. that's a positive step. he's written this open letter to the parents of children in central america, discouraging them from sending their children on this long, perilous journey from central america to the united states through these drug smuggling and human smuggling corridors controlled by the corridors controlled by the to the united states through these drug smuggling and human smuggling corridor's controlled by the census and other court tells -- but yesterday i

introduced a resolution with senator rubio that calls on the president to do five things. number one because for the person to publicly declare that the deferred action program he unilaterally announced in june 2012 will not apply to the recent waves of children who will be illegally crossing our southwestern border. that's the same thing secretary johnson has been saying and others but it's different coming from the president of the united states. it will be covered by the press and community aided to parents and central america don't send your children to the united states and turned them over and make them an additional part of this humanitarian crisis. subjected while the perils i talked about repeatedly of that treacherous trip from central america to the united states. secondly this resolution calls for the president to publicly discourage parents and central

america and mexico and elsewhere from sending their kids on the most dangerous migration journeys in the world. third, it calls on the president to fully and faithfully enforce u.s. immigration laws. now i don't know what the facts are but i do know some of the members of the house of representatives luis gutierrez has recently said if we can't pass immigration reform that suits him he wants the president to take further unilateral action, declining to enforce our immigration laws. that just contributes to the oppression that is causing this wave of inhumanity to come to the united states and creating a humanitarian crisis. it doesn't fi fix it. it makes it worse and i hope the president is watching and listening and decides that he needs to be the one to make the statement because only the president has the bully pulpit necessary to deal with this.

fourth, our resolution calls on the president to insurers that states like texas and i see my colleague from arizona california and other border states have the resources we need to handle the treatment of unaccompanied migrant children. some of my colleagues from texas visited they facility at lackland air force base including senator cruz and others and they reported that conditions which frankly are very disturbing. and fifth this resolution calls on the president to work closely with mexico and central american officials to improve security in mexico's southern border. mexico has a 500-mile southern border with guatemala which is insecure and poorest through which this -- many of these or all unaccompanied minors from central america come. so madam president i realize how controversial polarizing the discussion about immigration can be but i suggest we need to work

together in a bipartisan way to deal with it and that we should by hopefully making this above partisan politics and doing our job that we can help resolve this immediate crisis but then we can regain the public's confidence so they will allow us to take the reasonable steps we know we need to take moving forward to fix our broken immigration laws. passing this resolution i believe that send a powerful message about our commitment and the president's commitment to the rule of law. our commitment to resolving the current quarter crisis and our commitment to saving these young children from unimaginably treacherous journeys through mexico which i previously described so i i would her to let our colleagues to work together to send that message and encourage the president to use the bully pulpit to send a message i have outlined. >> would the senator yield for a question? >> i would. >> first of all i thank them for the resolution.

on resolution. our behalf of myself and others i appreciate your representation of the people of texas who are experiencing literally a crisis on the southern border of our state, of your state as well as mine. i note the presence of the senator from illinois, no greater advocate for the dreamers, the children who were brought here not willfully and i believe that in our immigration reform bill we addressed that issue in a humane and compassionate fashion. but i asked my colleague now isn't it terribly inhumane to see these children taken from these countries by some of the most unspeakable people on earth, these coyotes, and their trip along the way these hundreds of miles is so cruel

and inhumane to many of these children that it's chilling. there are these coyotes are terrible people. they commit crimes to these people on these young children. they do terrible things. they sometimes ride on the top of the train where the safety is obviously, their lives are literally in jeopardy and so we talk about and again i appreciate the work that has been done on behalf of the dreamers, but should we care a great deal of out these children even if they are not in the united states for what they are undergoing now, and isn't it a humanitarian issue of the highest order and wouldn't we be better served if we told these children and the people who were motivating them and making a lot

of money bringing them here, wouldn't it be better for us to say look, anybody who shows up at our border is not going to be allowed to stay in this country, but if you go to our consulates, if you go to our embassy in the country in which you reside and make a case that your life is being threatened, you are being persecuted or whatever the conditions are for asylum in our country than those cases can be judged and we can bring them if it is a humanitarian case that warrants it, bring them to the united states of america. but say if you come to her border and you cross how many miles as it from the guatemalan border? >> 12 under files from guatemala city to mcallen texas. >> 1200 files. don't subject yourself to a 1200-mile trip which is hazardous to your life and can be -- terrible things can happen to you.

why do we send a message that if you think you deserve asylum and you go to the consulate, you go to the embassy and people have sufficient personnel there to take up your case and if your case is compelling and meets our standards for asylum and we are going to give it to you. whatever you do, don't risk your life and your well-being to travel 1200 miles in the hands of a coyote. you know, i would say to the senator from texas sometimes when we say we have to have a secure border and the things that we need to do, we are viewed sometimes it's inhumane. my question is what is more inhumane than what is happening to these children now, some of them four, five, six years old. what is more inhumane than what is happening to them as we speak and should the president of the united states do with the secretary of homeland security did yesterday and said you

cannot enter our country even if you show up or you cannot stay in our country, you cannot stay in our country if you show up on the border. but you can apply for humanitarian asylum in the united states of america. >> madam president i appreciate the question i would say there's nobody in this chamber who has been more involved in trying to fix our broken immigration laws than the senior senator from arizona and it's certainly the senior senator from illinois has been very much involved. both of them are members of the so-called gang of eight who were the primary authors of the senate passed immigration bill that i would point out that not even under that bill with these children be covered because they wouldn't qualify for the so-called d.r.e.a.m. act provisions authored by the

senior senator from illinois. that's the point that the secretary of homeland security has been trying to make is that this is not a green light. anybody and everybody who wants to come to the united states for their protection, for the protection and safety and the security of the american people and in the interests of an orderly immigration flow in the rule of law we need people to play by the rules read and it's the perception that there are no rules and that if you make it here you will be able to stay regardless of whether you qualify under the law and the second thing i would say the senator is exactly right. i think people underestimate the horror inflicted on migrants who were transported from central america through mexico into united states at the hands of transnational criminal organizations. the coyotes as we always called them are the human smugglers,

they now have to pay the cartels for protection. they can't travel through these corridors up to mexico in the united states and these migrants in the process of being transported here writing along the train that you alluded to called the beast, they are prone to accidents. they can he lose their life, like berlin. they can be kidnapped and held for ransom and women can be raped and assaulted. it's horrific. who in their right mind would subject the family to those sorts of horrors only to end appeared the united states when our laws do not permit they are entering into this country. somehow the president i think is the only one who has the bully pulpit to can send that message in a way that none of us can. at least the secretary of homeland security can convince them that we are going to enforce our laws. >> isn't the only way really we are going to stop this right now is to convince these people not to listen to the coyotes that are advertising on radio and television in these countries

but to convince these people that trip will not lead to the result of being able to stay in united states of america. until that happens than they are going to believe that if they can get here they can stay here. look, all of our hearts and sympathies go out to people that live in these countries and have dealt with conditions. we understand why they want to come to united states of america that they are on a fools errand. they are on a fools errand and meanwhile they are putting their very lives at risk by taking that arduous journey to texas from guatemala or el salvador or honduras. i honduras. i see also by the way my friend, i guess i said no greater advocate have i ever known for the dreamers and senator durbin. he was one of the earliest and most outspoken and i hope he will join us in recognizing that

the only way we are going to stop this is to make sure people know that there is no pot of gold at the end of this terrible threat they are on. >> i would say to the senior senator from arizona and i know the senator of illinois and i would be glad to turn the floor over to you momentarily that i see two big problems. one is this wave of children that are coming and not allowed to legally enter or stay in united states airbus are subject to be returned to their country of origin. that is what vice president biden said, former secretary of state hillary clinton. that's the law of the land but think about if the president doesn't step up and use his bully pulpit to send this message in a way none of us can because people pay attention to him, and not as much to us. i think that's a fair statement. then this wave is going to continue and it's going to get worse and worse and worse but here's the other part of that i

would say to the senior senator from arizona and the senior senator from illinois both of whom i know passionately care about fixing our broken immigration laws. we have had our differences but i know you are committed sincerely to trying to fix our broken immigration laws. how will the american people let us do this if they have lost confidence in the executive branch's willingness to enforce the current law? i think it makes it much, much harder and in fact as i alluded to a moment ago the majority leader and the senior senator from new york have both said let's pass immigration reform but let's just delay its implementation until after president obama leaves office. that would be an embarrassing proposal. i would yield in just a moment that i would say that's got to be embarrassing. that shows a lack of confidence in the president's commitment to enforce the rule of law and i just think it's a problem. so i think the president could

help mitigate that problem and help restore the impression that you are not going to get a free pass if you make it to our southern border. i will gladly turn the floor over. >> i would like to the church asked the senator from texas a question. he has said repeatedly that the president is not enforcing existing law. this humanitarian crisis on our border we all look knowledge and i think we agree more than we disagree but i do want to question her premise. when the senate -- would the senator from texas tell us what existing law the president is not enforcing that is created this crisis? >> i would say to my friend from illinois i have tried to make clear that the current law bars the entry of these children and people across the border because they wouldn't even meet the terms of the president's executive order. if you believe the president's

executive order has the effect of law. i tell but what i'm saying is it's the impression. it's a couple of things. it's both the impression that the president has not committed to enforcing the law and the fact that now when these adults are contained and children are placed with relatives in the country virtually none of them show back up for their hearing. so the effect is because we don't have a comprehensive system to enforce our immigration laws even after people come to our country, it's the perception and the reality of how that works that tells them if they make it here then they won't ever have to leave. >> with the senator yield for further question? does the senator know the origin of law which requires that an unaccompanied child be turned over within 72 hours by the department of homeland security to the department of health and human services specifically the

office of refugee resettlement. does the senator from texas know who introduced outlaw, who at a deuce that bill into signed into law a? >> i would say to the distinguished senator, i don't know who introduced the bill but i do know who signed it into law was president george w. bush. i might say to the presiding officer that bill was introduced by a former colleague from texas richard armey and signed into law by president george w. bush which required what is currently taking place that within 72 hours unaccompanied children need to be taken out of the department of homeland security by law enforcement agency in place through the department of health and human services into some protective situation. so the president is enforcing a law signed by president bush, authored by the congress of texas congressman armey so to

say the president is not enforcing the law i asked the senator from texas on what basis are you saying back? >> i would say to the senator from illinois here's how it works in a think we disagree about the law or the origin of the law that how it works in application is that these children are now being placed with family members who they themselves may not be documented and they have entered the country themselves in violation of immigration law but because it's perceived as a relatively safe place for them to temporarily reside for their court proceedings that is why the placement is made with a family member in the united states. absent the family members presume it's going to be some legal guardian or foster family or the like while these legal proceedings go forward. but here's the practical problem. it's once they make it here to the united states if they never returned back to the court in response to their notice to appear than they are lost

forever to immigration enforcement system and they become a part of the great american melting pot, never to be heard from or seen again unless they commit some other crime. that is what is being referred to as believe in the press coverage in mexico or i should say central america and elsewhere and this is the river we hear from migrants themselves that refer to a notice to appear which they think once they get their home free and never have to show back up for their court hearing. so it's as good as a permission slip to enter the country. that is what i think is happening. >> with the senator yield or a question? if i understand we don't argue with the fact that the law governing the situation was a lot that was authored by congressman from texas republican congressman signed into law by republican president george w. bush and currently is being enforced by this president and with the senator from texas has suggested is the law in

itself has a loophole or an opening that if the person doesn't appear to young child of the parent with a child than they could be lost in the system. i would ask the senator from texas that seems to me you are suggesting we need to change the law or at least address the loss so two questions to you. if you will concede the fact that president obama is enforcing the law as written, i would like to ask you secondly what you would do with these children once they show up in the united states? let's assume you have a 12 euro child as i heard in a case last night who was on top of a freight train for four days, finally made it into the united states possibly at the hands of the coyote smuggler pushed across the river and a raft and told to report to the first person in uniform. what would you have us do with that child?

>> madam president i would respond to my friend from illinois and say i would have them enforce the law of which is as you describe the border patrol once they process the child or the migrant then they turn them over to health and human services where they can be placed in a humanitarian and hopefully clean conditions so they could be -- so their interest could be looked after while they are legal case proceeds. the problem is not just the fact that there are no consequences once these children are others are released on a notice to appear which is never enforced. it is also the perception that for people like for example congressman luis gutierrez this morning it was so frustrated by our inability to pass immigration reform, he said the president needs to basically withhold any deportations or he needs to radically essentially refuse refused to enforce the law even further.

you know, america is the most generous country in the world when it comes to our legal immigration system. we naturalize about 800,000 people a year. it has actually been up to as many as a million people. we are very generous but it's not too much to ask that they do it through legal means for their protection and ours. i would say the statements the president has been making and certainly being allegro actions he continues to take if the perception that he doesn't care what congress says. he is going to go it alone. as a matter fact this morning supreme court rebuked the president on an illegal recess appointment. unconstitutional recess appointment so i just think it's not just the law or how it's written on the books. it's how the law is actually implemented and is although the further perception that the president is going to continue to basically refused to repatriate people who entered

the country illegally. >> madam president i would yield the floor. >> madam president. >> the assistant majority leader. >> that a person i went to the white house last night and we met with cabinet members and staff members in this topic came up. i met with one of the president's close advisers on this issue and she was describing to me what she has seen in mcallen texas and there were tears in her eyes. heartbreaking stories of babies, children, infants who are coming to this country and many of them are in the hands of smugglers and coyotes to have gotten money from their parents or families to transport them to the border of the united states and she told me the story of a 12-year-old boy and i mentioned earlier in guatemala who was put on a freight train, the top of the freight train one of these cars instead hang on, for four days. four days this 12-year-old boy

scared to death was on top of this freight train as it barreled through central america on his way to the united states. he had with him the name of a relative in the united states. he was told as soon as he got across the border look for somebody in uniform. don't show any resistance and present yourself, which he did and now he sits in a facility in texas. this is a horrible humanitarian situation. the numbers that are involved here. i just want to give for the record the numbers that have been reported here are worth noting. some people may think they are talking about hundreds of children. this year, this year alone as of june 15, unaccompanied children apprehended by the border patrol from honduras, 15,000. guatemala, 12,000. el salvador, 11,000. mexico, 12,000.

almost 80% of these kids come from three countries honduras el salvador and guatemala. why are they coming here? they are coming here for a number of reasons. number one, there is this network, criminal network that gives -- gets money to transport children children and they promise the families we will get them to the border. god only knows what's going to happen to those kids on their way. some of them will die, some of the girls will be raped and their lives may never be the same. it is a desperate awful tragic situation and there is no getting around the fact. why are the families doing this? why would you turn loose a fourth and fifth-grader in your household to make that awful deadly journey collects part of the reason is those three countries honduras, el salvador and guatemala are virtually law was. they are three of the top five countries in the world when it comes to murder rate.

there's a fear that the gangs in these countries will kill their kids anyway. a young girl in one of these countries said, iran, didn't know what else to do because i was told by one of the members of the gang that he wanted to take me in as his girlfriend and i know what happens to girlfriends. they are raped and then they are killed and left in a plastic bag on the side of the road. that's the reality of life sadly in some of these countries. the united states is at the end of this journey trying to decide what is the humane thing to do when in an fund, a toddler, a 10-year-old, a 12-year-old shows up. there is no easy answer rate the one point i want to make and clarify here and i hope i did in the course of my colloquy with my friend and my colleague from texas, this is not a question about whether president obama is not enforcing existing law.

the president is enforcing existing law and america. here's what it says. what an unaccompanied child shows up at our border and airport or patrol takes this child into custody within 72 hours giving them time because it's not easy, we need to put this child in a different place outside of the law enforcement agency. technically take them out of the police station part of the world and put them in some part of the world that is best for a child. that is what they are acquired to do under a law introduced by a republican texas congressman dick armey signed into law by a republican president george w. bush george w. bush. but president barack obama is doing is enforcing a law which president bush signed in support of our republicans. please for a second can we stop the partisanship on this? let's view the spot as a political crisis but a humanitarian crisis.

but the college the obvious. the president has tried in his capacity to deal with immigration issues. he has done more than he wanted to do as president. he said last night do you think i believe the executive orders the best way to govern america? no, it's better to do it by law. but let me tell you why he is forced into executive orders. 365 days ago on the floor of this united states senate we passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill. one of my proudest moments as a senator. there were eight of us who wrote the bill and it took us months. forward publicans john mccain was just on the floor, my friend, marco rubio of florida jeff flake of arizona and i'm thinking for a second. i have blanked on it. i will think of the other one for second. lindsey graham of south carolina so the four republicans on our

side of the table chuck schumer bob menendez and michael bennett of colorado. we went at it for months and we wrote the bill. we brought the bill to the floor and be covered virtually every aspect of our broken immigration system. start to finish. not easy but we covered it all. the bill passed here that 68 votes. we had 14 republicans joined democrats passing the bill. it was supported by the chamber of commerce. it was supported by the labor unions. the faith community. grover norquist one of the most conservative republicans in our country supported it publicly and said it was a good idea and we passed it. we sent to the house of representatives. one year ago. what has happened to comprehensive immigration reform since we sent it to one year ago in the house of representatives? nothing. nothing. they refused to call the bill for consideration. and so when members come to the floor and talk about how broken our immigration system is i

agree and many of us tried to fifix it and we did it the wayta bipartisan fashion give-and-take, compromise. we are sending under this new bill more enforcement to the border between texas and mexico than we have ever seen before. i said somewhat jokingly people at the border can reach out and touch hands there will be so many of them figuratively. that was the price the republicans insisted on, border enforcement. all right. what we insisted on was take 11 million undocumented american -- in america today and if they have been here for at least two years give them a chance. let them come forward, register with united states who they are, where they live, breathe a work who is in their household, let them pay their taxes. let them pay a fine and let them learn english. learn english. if they do those things we will do a criminal background check

to make sure they are no threat to anyone in this country and we will watch them. we will watch them for 13 years. 13 years. then they have a chance at legalization. that is what our bill says. they go to the back of the line and they wait 13 years while they pay their fines. it's tough. some of them want to make it to the end of the line but it's fair to give them a chance. so, when members come to the floor and criticize our current immigration system i say to them there was a repair path system. there was a fix to that system. it passed the senate one year ago and speaker boehner refuses to call it to the floor of the house. i don't know why. i would like to know why because it would pass. they would be enough republicans joining with the democrats to pass it and we would finally have done something on the issue of immigration. now we have before us the suggestion by the senator, the

senior senator from texas. he has a resolution we should take it up. the first part of the resolution says the president has to make it clear that the daca executive order does not apply to the new people coming across the border. well that is a fact. those who are coming across the border today can't qualify to become legal in the united states. not under an existing executive executive order under a closed conference of immigration reform that we passed the senate. they can't become citizens. the president saying it personally. i'm sure the president would say it personally because he sent the vice president out to central america to visit the countries until the leaders there this is a mistake. if your people believe they can stay in this country legally, they cannot. simply he said we have to discourage this migration. i am for that. who is and for that? we need to discourage the explication of these children and their families and do it in every manner possible.

there's nothing in a situation that i i think isn't already being done and the third thing is to fully enforce existing law is the point i tried to make to the senator from texas. the president is fully enforcing existing law. if you want to change the laws let's have that debate but in thing being president is not enforcing existing laws that is incorrect. he is. this was the to be addressed but he is dealing with them. i want to say word if i can about have on an issue which has come up on the floor and one that is near and dear to my heart. it was 13 years ago madam president when i got a call to the chicago office. there was a korean-american mother who had an 18-year-old daughter who is a musical prodigy. she played classical piano in high school and she had been offered a scholarship to the manhattan conservatory of music. her family was a poor immigrant family and this was the chance

of a lifetime and when the mother and daughter sat down to fill out the application to go to the manhattan conservatory university there is a question is that what is your citizenship? he turned to her and she said what do i put there? she said i don't know. we brought you under visitor's visa when you were 2-year-old -- two years old and we never filed for a new visa. they called our office and we looked at the law and the law was clear. the law was clear. this 18-year-old girl under our law had to leave the united states for 10 years and then apply to come back in. where was she going to go? her family was here. and so the mother said to me what can we do? i told her to render the law almost nothing but that is one i introduced the d.r.e.a.m. act. the traymack said if you were brought here as a child and infant under the age of 16 and he completed high school and it had no criminal record of

substance at all if you served and are military or when to use to college and had a chance to become an american citizen. that was the d.r.e.a.m. act introduced 13 years ago, 13 years ago. it has passed the house. it didn't pass the senate that year. it has passed the senate as part of comprehensive immigration reform but it has not passed the house. several years ago i wrote to the president. i said to the president of 22 other senators would you consider issuing an executive order saying he will not deport these dream children, these dreamers because they are eligible under bills that passed in the house and senate. give them a suspension of deportation and allow them to stay in the united states without being deported. he signed executive order. for almost 600,000 who stepped forward and they have agreed that they will submit the information to our government and in turn they will be spared deportation.

they are going to school and getting jobs. amazing things have happened. great stories and they come on the floor to tell them all the time but we still am have a final law. we have the president's executive order which gives them a break now but we still have the final vote to resolve it. i want to tell you a story about one of those dreamers today. let me see if i have got these pictures correctly here. this is maria gonzález deal and her parents marvin and marina gonzalez. marvin and marino brought marine from costa rica to united states in 1991 when maria was five years old. they came to united states illegally on a temporary visa and settled in jefferson city missouri. a lawyer said to them put down roots, get a job and you have the chance to become a citizen. the gonzalez family bought a house pay taxes were active members of their church. martin was a male courier for

the missouri governor. marina taught spanish and the local school and area was at the top of her high school class. they thought they had done everything right but then the family was placed in the partition proceedings. the community of jefferson city was angry that a good family like this that was a part of their community was facing deportation. they rallied around them. i first met marina in 2005. she was on the first streamers to tell her story publicly. back then was a courageous thing to do. it still is made up my still is. have i requested a partner, security granted by rhea a stay of deportation but on july 5, 20059 years ago maria's parents were deported back to costa rica. in 2008 marie graduated from westminster college in missouri with a degree in political science and business at her parents couldn't be there to see her. they have been deported back to costa rica. in 2009 marie married her college sweetheart and planned a

second ceremony in costa rica so her parents could be part of it. marie and her husband flew to costa rica and as you can see from this picture they were elated to see one another for the first time in five years. just a few hours later martha and her father who had prostate cancer collapsed and was rushed to the hospital and passed away later that same day that this photo was taken. luckily they got to see him before he passed away. the family held a funeral the next day and carried on with the planned wedding, the costa rica wedding the following day with the empty chair at the head table for her deceased father. today marie is the proud mother of an 11-month-old baby girl. in march of 2014 when he became a citizen of united states. here's what she wrote in a letter. i was blessed and thankful to get the opportunity to stay united states on temporary visa

to be at the finish my education, get a job, find my soulmate and eventually become a full citizen though at the cost of not spending that time with my family and feeling alone for so long. my family was torn apart when i was 18. i will never ever be able to be reunited. my immigration struggle continues until the day i can once again have my mom at my side site. i hope other families don't have to endure this pain. there are 11 million stories in america, many of them just like this. hard-working men and women law-abiding families, vital parts of our churches and communities, who had the courage to leave everything behind and come to this great nation. those of us who are immigrants in this country such as the presiding officer in myself or at least my mother thank our lucky stars that we were given his chance. my mother was in an immigrant to

her country and her son as a united states congressman in illinois. choo is pressure at the age of two. her naturalization certificate is upstairs in my office. it's a reminder to me and anyone who visits me that this is a nation of immigrants. we are a nation that thrives with the diversity of our immigration and the energy they bring. the courage which they bring leaving everything behind to come to this country. that is your family madam president, i would say that my family. but that's america's family. that's who we are and if we were to the point where we can even discuss future immigration in the u.s. house of representatives, have we reached a point where we can't even bring the matter to the floor for a vote? are we going to ignore what that means to this family and the millions just like them? what it means to the thousands of kids presenting themselves at the border? we are better than that. america is better than that and

when we embrace our diversity, blew me up embracing a gracious part of who we are in america we will be stronger for it. not just in the creation of businesses and jobs. these immigrants are some of the hardest working people in america. they take the toughest jobs that a lot of americans wouldn't touch. what is their dreams? that their sons and daughters can have a better life and thank goodness that story has been repeated over and over again. that defines who we are and america. and now a year later the house of representatives is about to throw up his hands and walk away from even addressing immigration issues. what a heartbreaking situation. what an abdication of responsibility. i know there's a partisan difference between the house and senate but i honestly, honestly believe that the speaker had the political courage to call but

comprehensive immigration bill the bipartisan bill passed the senate, we would find enough republican house members that would stand up and vote with the democrats and pass it. sure there will be critics of the speaker. you shouldn't have done it but that is what leadership calls for, for the speaker to have that conviction and to get it done. i hope you will. it's a long time waiting and for these families years and years some of them of broken dreams that will never be fulfilled, families that have been split up and trying to survive. but that is our responsibility. not just for dreamers but for our country to make sure that we renewed his commitment to our diversity and to immigration. madam president i yield the floor. >> the supreme court today ruled in favor of senate republicans concerning president obama's 2012 appointments to the national labor relations board. the justices unanimously found that the ordinance without senate confirmation was illegal. we will have more on bad at

8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. hear his reaction to the ruling by senator chuck grassley. >> i asked permission to speak for 10 or 11 minutes of morning business. >> without objection. >> i come to the floor today to praise the supreme court's decision to strike down president obama's illegal recess appointments. article ii, section 2 of the constitution provides for only two ways in which the president may appoint certain officers. first it provides that the president nominates and by and with the advice and consent of the senate appoints various officers. second, it permits the president to make temporary appointments when a vacancy in one of those

offices happens if the senate is in recess. on january 4, 2012, the president made for appointments. they were purportedly based on that recess appointments laws. he took this action even though they were not made in the words of the constitution during the recess of the senate. these appointments were blatantly unconstitutional. they were not made with the advice and consent of the senate and they were not made during the recess of the senate. in december and january of 2011 and 12, the senate held sessions every three days. it did so precisely to prevent the president from making recess appointments. it followed the very same

procedure as it had during the term of president bush and that was done at the instant -- at the assistance of a geordie leader reid. the president declined to make recess appointments during these periods less respecting the desire of the senate and the constitution that we were in session. but president obama chose to attempt to make recess appointments despite the existence of the senate being in session. as the supreme court said today for the purposes of the recess appointments cause the senate is in session when it says it is, provided that under its own rules it contains the capacity to transact senate business, quote from the decision.

no president had attempted to make recess when the senate said it was in session. i'm a little surprised since president obama has served in the senate that he would not know how this admin respected in the past by presidents. so president obama failed to act quote consistent with the constitution's broad delegation of authority to the senate to determine the rules of its proceedings end of quote as the constitution states. these illegal appointments represent just one of the many important areas where president obama has disregarded the laws with his philosophy of the ants justifying the means. we should all be thankful that the supreme court has reined rained in this kind of lawlessness on the part of this administration.

and it should also bring some competence that at least from time to time, maybe not as often as our constituents think so, that the checks and balances of the government to work. the supreme court was called upon to decide whether president obama did make recess appointments even when the senate was in pro forma session trade fortunately for the sake of the constitution and the protection of individual liberty, the supreme court said it did not. now this is a very significant decision. it's the supreme court's biggest rebuke of any president because this was a unanimous decision. the biggest rebuke of any president since 1974 when it ordered president nixon to reduce the tapes. it included the unanimous decision including both justices

that even this president has appointed to the supreme court. that shows the disregard in which the president held this body and the constitution when he made these appointments and remember as i just said i'm a little surprised because at one time he was a senator barack obama. thanks to the supreme court the u.s. with the use of recess appointments will now be made only in accordance with the views of the writers of the constitution, our founding fathers. it is worth keeping in mind that the president, the justice department and the senate said at the time of these appointments. the president said that his nominees were pending and he would not wait for the senate to take action in that meant important business would be done. the president stated in another

way that i have a pad and the phone and if congress won't i will. the supreme court has made clear that failure to confirm this not confirm presidential appointment power. the appointments were so blatantly unconstitutional that originally there was speculation that the justice department had not approved their legality. the department of legal counsel have provided a legal opinion that claimed to justify the appointments. in other words justify the unconstitutional action the president. the reasoning was preposterous and this unanimous vote decision backs that up. that office to find the same words recess that appear in the

constitution in two different places differently and without justification. it claims that the senate was not available to do business so it was in recess when the president signed legislation that the congress passed during those pro forma sessions. the department allowed the president rather than the congress to decide whether the senate was in session. as today's supreme court unanimous decision made clear the office of legal counsel opinion was an embarrassment reflecting very poorly on its author. she had told us in her confirmation hearings that she would not let her loyalty to the president overcome her loyalty to the law. this office of legal counsel opinion proved otherwise present the president had the power he did not have and he did not have

that power as expressed today by that unanimous decision of the supreme court. those partisans in that office who defended that opinion and its author should be humbled and should take back their misplaced writings, not that i expect them to do that. the office of legal counsel opinion furthered a trend for that office from one which gave the president objective advice about his authority to one which provided legal justification for what action he had already decided he wanted to take. perhaps now that the office has been so thoroughly humiliated it will hopefully conclude that the department and the president will be better served by returning to the former role of that office as a servant of the law and not as a servant of the

president. the other statements to keep in mind were from senators. no senator of the president's party criticized president obama for making these clearly unconstitutional appointments even though they felt that we have to protect the president from president bush doing that. rather than the separation of powers they protected their parties president. those were not the senator -- presents best moments. it underscores the need to change the operation of the united states senate. appointment powers and the separation powers are not simply constitutional concepts. they are the rule of how the american people are protected

from abuse by government people. they exist not so much to protect the branches of government but then to safeguard individual liberty. let me "back again from the federalist papers as i often do, this time 51. madison wrote that quote separate and distinct exercise the different powers of governance is essential to the preservation of liberty end of quote. president obama is unconstitutional recess appointments are part of a pattern in which he thanks that he cannot otherwise advance his agenda and he can unilaterally toward the law. that is a pretty authoritarian approach to government. whether it is with respect to drugs, immigration, recess appointments, health care and a number of other areas, president

obama has concluded that he can take unilateral action regardless of the law and of course as we see in the case of these appointments that the justice department has aided and abetted him and that. praise them today to the supreme court for forcing the president to confront the errors of his ways and for enforcing the constitutional structure that protects our freedom. and maybe cause him to modify that statement he made earlier this year that when congress won't, i will because i have a pen and a phone. i yield the floor. >> the supreme court also ruled that buffer zones outside abortion clinics violate the first amendment rights of protesters. massachusetts senator ed markey spoke about the ruling on the senate floor.

>> thank you madam president. since 1973 when the supreme court decided that a woman's right to choose was constitutionally protected women's health clinics across the country have been targeted by violence and other criminal activities and by extremists. the crimes of arson obstruction and even murder. when an safety has been repeatedly put at risk simply for exercising a constitutional right. for the past 10 years there have been approximately 75,000 incidents of violence against abortion providers in the united states. that is unacceptable. you should always remember that each of these victims of violence has a name, a family, a story. in 1994 a gunman killed two people and wounded five others

at a clinic in massachusetts. one of these victims was 25-year-old shannon lowery a daughter of a public schoolteacher, but love sister and a volunteer who worked domestically and internationally with poor families and children. shannon worked as a receptionist and a spanish translator at planned parenthood in brooklyn is a chat -- massachusetts. she works there not for the pay but because she fundamentally believed women had a right to affordable health care. she wanted to do her part to ensure that patients at a formal brawl stressful time in life was greeted with a smile. five days after christmas in 1994 she was fatally shot in the neck at planned parenthood by an extremist protester. shannon story is just one of the many tragedies caused by violence against women exercising their rights raid in 2007 after the loss laws on the books provided inadequate

massachusetts insured that there would be fair and balanced laws that created a buffer zone of 35 feet around the entry of reproductive health care facilities. this law was intended to protect people like shannon and the thousands of women and staff to visit and work at clinics. the buffer zone law worked. massachusetts women who exercise their fundamental right to health care without a gauntlet of abuse. according to a survey of reproductive health care centers across the country a majority of facilities with buffer zones experienced a decrease in criminal activity after a buffer zone was instituted. today the supreme court of the united states took away those buffer zone of safety and struck down the massachusetts buffer zone law effectively undoing the historic progress we have made

in ensuring that women are protected when accessing reproductive health care in exercising their constitutional rights. today's supreme court ruling puts up with it at risk simply for exercising their constitutional rights. shannon's brother liam visited me on the day that this case was argued before the supreme court. they are family is representative of what has happened across this country in terms of the endangerment of women when they seek to exercise their constitutional rights. so today is a sad day. it's not just a sad day for america but in particular for shannon's family because they put a lot on the line to ensure that this case was brought before the supreme court of the united states. the court's decision makes it more difficult for states to

guarantee women's reproductive rights, more likely that acts of violence and intimidation against women seeking reproductive health care will occur. reproductive rights under attack across the country like never before it is imperative that we ensure that basic safety of all women and staff at planned parenthood and other health facilities. we should be expanding access to safe reproductive health care health care for women, not restricting it. and that is unfortunately what today is going to represent in the history of health care for women in our country. you madam president are a national leader on these issues, fighting for the rights of women and i stand with you and i stand with the other members of the senate but more importantly just ordinary families across this country, who along with planned

parenthood and all women in massachusetts and this country, who believe that every woman seeking reproductive health should be safe and productive and i'm proud that all massachusetts law enforcement officials will continue to use every legal tool available to ensure the safety and privacy of women in -- and clinic staff. today is in historic debt -- day. unfortunately it's one that our country cannot be prouder than i yield back the balance of my time. ..