John Cornyn

Responding to my friend from New York, I would say theoretically the answer to his question is yes. As a practical matter, we know the House has passed a particular piece of legislation that we would like to take up. It is what it is. It…

Again, Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from New York knows well the answer to that is yes.

To come here and repeatedly refuse to answer the questions strikes me as nothing less than contempt of our oversight responsibility, and it is a very, very serious matter.

I am asking, if you are wrong, if the Supreme Court disagrees with you--if five members of the Supreme Court disagree with you--do you believe you have authority to issue an administrative fix, or do you think you need additional…

What we know right now is, it would be devastating, the effect, in terms of loss of premium, loss of individuals.

You are a highly intelligent, charming person, but you refuse to answer our questions and that, to me, does not strike me as trying to work with Congress but rather contempt of Congress's oversight responsibilities.

I would like to follow up on Senator Hatch's questions because you did not answer a single one of them.

If you lose, are you going to come to Congress and ask for additional legislation?

I renew my unanimous consent request. I have conferred with the Senator from Rhode Island and yield to him for purposes of asking a question.

So the question is, why can't the government do more with less, and, specifically, estimates are that about a quarter of Earned Income Tax Credit payments in fiscal year 2013 alone were paid in error.

The policies of the Federal Government particularly with regard to immigration as having a very direct and real impact on taxpayers and citizens

I have explored every legal option, and this is something you cannot do. This violates the Constitution.

It is repugnant to me that Government should try to array its power against the freedom of the press.

We can actually work on things even though we have other differences.

Senator Leahy and I have been working on some legislation which would actually codify the President's mandate, the presumption of openness.

President Obama in 2009 mandated that Government agencies--executive branch agencies should operate under the presumption that information should be open unless otherwise prevented by some rule or some other law.

It is absolutely critical to the functioning of our democratic form of Government that the people have access to as much information as they can possibly get.

Documents from Operation Choke Point obtained by the House Oversight Committee showed that the DOJ and FDIC used intimidation tactics.

Yes, Senator. And I believe that has also been decided by the Supreme Court as well.

But he seemed somewhat dismissive of concerns about this massive--what I would consider, in essence, refusal to enforce existing law that is involved in these Executive actions.

I think it would make it possible for you to be a more effective Attorney General and it would make it possible for us to be more effective in our respective roles as Members of Congress exercising our responsibilities as well.

I do not share the ambivalence that the senior Senator from New York has about the benefits of these trade agreements.

The Senate has spoken on the preceding amendment and overwhelmingly affirmed the Constitution as the only standard that should apply under these circumstances. The standard being proposed by the Senator from New Jersey is an anti-States…

With all due respect, I hear a lot of ideas about how we can spend money, but I do not hear a lot of great ideas about how we can pay down our debt as opposed to pass it on to the future generations.

Since the recession in December of 2007, 1.2 million net jobs have been created in my State of Texas.