John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this week the Senate continues to press forward on a number of congressional review actions; in this case, a disapproval that will roll back and repeal many Obama-era regulations that have hurt people across the country and strangled our economic growth. By doing away with excessively burdensome rules and regulations, we are delivering on our promise to the American people to actually do what we can to help the economy, to grow the economy, to create jobs and not hurt it with unnecessary, expensive, and burdensome redtape. Earlier this year, we began the legislative process to deliver on our biggest promise: repealing and replacing ObamaCare with more affordable and more accessible healthcare options, options that will work for all American families. The American Health Care Act, introduced in the House on Monday, is the first step in fulfilling that promise. ObamaCare is collapsing. It has already failed countless families across the country, and it has forced people off good insurance plans they liked and strong-armed them to sign up for plans that were more expensive, offered less care, and didn't even let them use the doctor of their choice. So we would be revisiting healthcare even if Hillary Clinton had been elected President of the United States because ObamaCare is in a meltdown mode. ObamaCare has also saddled our economy with more than a trillion dollars in new taxes. Most of those taxes are so hidden that most Americans are probably not aware of the fact that there is even a tax charged on the premium for their health insurance policy, for example. Well, all of these taxes end up being absorbed and have to be paid by American families. At its very core, the individual mandate of ObamaCare was a major power play and overreach by the Federal Government. Basically, what it said was, if you don't buy the government-prescribed health insurance plan, we are going to fine you; we are going to penalize you. The government should not be able to force anyone to spend their own hard-earned money for something they don't want but have to buy under a threat of financial penalty. The American people have spoken up loudly and clearly and rightfully demanded that Congress do better, and we will. Since the 2010 timeframe--when our colleagues on the other side of the aisle passed ObamaCare with 60 votes in the Senate, a majority in the House, and with the White House--they have lost the majority in the Senate, they have lost the majority in the House, and they have lost the White House. I think ObamaCare has been one of the major reasons why, because people, the more they learn about it, the less they like it, and they don't appreciate Washington forcing them to do things they don't want to do with their own money. About 2 months ago, one of my constituents in Texas wrote me about her skyrocketing healthcare costs. Before last year, her premium was about $325 a month. A short time later, that was revised to $436 a month. This same Texan later moved from one city to another and, because of her change of address, her premium jumped to $625 a month. It started at $325 and is now $625. In 2017, thanks to ObamaCare, her premium went up again to an astronomical $820 a month. It started at $325 before ObamaCare and is now $820 a month. I don't know many people who could absorb that kind of increase in their healthcare insurance premium. In about a year, her monthly healthcare payment jumped by more than 150 percent--150 percent. That is hardly what I would call affordable; thus, the misnamed Affordable Care Act should be the un- Affordable Care Act. To make matters worse, she then found that her provider would be putting a halt to individual plans in Texas, something that has been a recurring theme in my State and across the country. So while President Obama said: If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, as a result of ObamaCare, she was not able to keep her plan so she had to find a new plan and a new doctor, a plan ultimately with less care, less flexibility, and even a higher price. Suffice it to say, for this constituent of mine and for millions more like her, ObamaCare is not working. ObamaCare is not affordable, and it is hurting Texans. It is time for Congress to keep its promise that we have made in every election since that given the privilege of governing--of being in the majority, being in a position to change things--we would repeal and replace ObamaCare with options that fit the needs of all Americans and their families at a price they can afford.

Mr. CORNYN. I will not, not at this time. Fortunately, we now have a President in the White House who clearly sees the failure of ObamaCare and wants to do something about it. Republicans in Congress have introduced a bill, which is now being marked up in the House, that the President can actually sign, once it is passed, to get us out of this mess. The American Health Care Act is the vehicle to do just that, and I am glad President Trump endorsed the plan earlier this week. It is a work in progress. The House committees are marking it up as we speak. There will be changes along the way, but, ultimately, the House will pass the bill and send it to the Senate. Then we will have an opportunity to offer our amendments during the course of its passage. The important point to make, though, is that this legislation will actually put patients first so they are not forced into a plan that they don't want or that provides coverage they can't afford. It does away with the outrageous new taxes and the penalties that have made the economy worse off and have made life harder for American families. The legislation will also give families more flexibility so they can get the healthcare specific to their needs that actually works for them. If they decide, for example, to get a major medical policy that is relatively inexpensive and then use a health savings account to use pretax dollars to pay for their regular doctors' visits, they will have the flexibility to do that. So this legislation promotes sensible reforms to ensure that big ticket items like Medicaid are put on a more sustainable fiscal path. I have heard some suggestions that this legislation actually guts Medicaid. That is false. That is not true. It actually continues at current levels in this shared State and Federal program, but it is subject to a cost-of-living index that will actually put Medicaid on a more sustainable path. Just as importantly, it will also return the authority back to the States to come up with the flexible programs they need to deal with the specific healthcare needs of the people of their State. This legislation makes sure that Medicaid doesn't lose sight of its design, which is to serve the most vulnerable among us who can't afford access to quality healthcare. It provides them that access--and better access--by providing flexibility to the States. We know that the States and the Federal Government spend an awful lot of money on Medicaid. In Texas, for example, my State spent close to one-third of its budget on Medicaid last year--one-third of all State spending--and it is uncapped, so it goes up every year by leaps and bounds. Under the American Health Care Act, Medicaid will be tied to the number of people in the State using it, a per capita rate, which makes sense, and it represents the first major overhaul of the program in decades. ObamaCare left us with unchecked government spending, more taxes, and fewer healthcare options. This bill is the opposite of ObamaCare in every way. It will control spending in a commonsense way, it will repeal ObamaCare's taxes and the individual and employer mandate, and it will provide more flexible free market options for families across the country. That is not just a bumper sticker or advertisement; that is actually what is contained in the legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House, in the Senate, and in the Trump administration to get this done in the next few weeks. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week, we remember the brave men of Texas who gave so much to preserve freedom in the Pacific and survived the greatest horrors of World War II. Soldiers of 2nd Battalion, 131st Field Artillery Regiment from Camp Bowie, TX, a Texas National Guard unit, were fighting alongside Australian forces on Java, an island in Indonesia, against invading Japanese forces. On March 8, 1942 the Americans and their Australian allies were captured by the Japanese. A report was never filed by the Japanese to identify the captured unit. As a result, the Texas soldiers had disappeared and were dubbed ``the Lost Battalion.'' They were combined with survivors of the USS Houston, CA-30, which had been sunk in the Battle of Sunda Strait on March 1, 1942, and dispersed to POW labor camps located in Burma, Thailand, and Japan to work as slave laborers. They worked on the Burma-Siam Death Railway, building a railroad through the jungle and into the coal mines, docks, and shipyards in Japan and other Southeast Asian countries. For 42 months, the men of 2nd Battalion, 131st Field Artillery and the USS Houston suffered together through humiliation, degradation, physical and mental torture, starvation, and horrible tropical diseases, with no medication. Five hundred and thirty-two soldiers of the battalion, along with 371 survivors of the USS Houston were taken prisoner. As many as 163 soldiers died in captivity, and of those, 133 are estimated to have died working on the railroad. In August of 1945, after 42 months of captivity and forced labor, the survivors of 2nd Battalion, 131st Field Artillery Regiment and the survivors of the USS Houston were returned to the United States. March 8, 2017, marks the 75th year since their capture on the island of Java, and these soldiers deserve to be remembered for their heroic service and sacrifices in the Pacific theater of battle.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week our colleagues in the House released a plan to clean up the mess left in the wake of the ObamaCare's failed promises. The bill known as the American Health Care Act represents the next step forward in keeping our promise to repeal and replace ObamaCare, which continues to fail Texans and folks all across the country. Instead of helping more Americans and more Texans by providing more healthcare choices, ObamaCare has actually led to dwindling insurance options in a lot of counties across the country. In fact, it is estimated that almost 40 percent of counties in Texas have just one option on the exchange this year. It is hard to shop, it is hard to compare, and it is hard to get the benefits of competition when there is only one option because of ObamaCare. So that is actually the opposite of what the President and the advocates for the Affordable Care Act promised. That is what happens when government interferes with the market and takes a one-size-fits-all approach to our Nation's healthcare. The fact of the matter is that the path that President Obama put us on is not sustainable. It is hurting families and burdening job creators and is taking a tremendous toll, and Americans are paying the price. I know some of our colleagues across the aisle are relishing the fact that Republicans, the majority, are now taking this step to keep our commitment to repeal and replace ObamaCare. They are sitting back and hoping that we fail. But the fact of the matter is that we would be having this debate no matter who won the Presidency last November 8, because ObamaCare is in a meltdown mode. It is unsustainable, and we would be dealing with our broken healthcare system no matter who won the White House on November 8 of last year. One of my constituents wrote me earlier this year about her daughter. She said that before ObamaCare, back when she could choose the policy that she wanted, she was paying about $190 a month for health insurance, and she had a $500 deductible. Well, that sounds pretty reasonable--not great, but not terrible either. Then came ObamaCare. Now her daughter, who unfortunately lost her job in the interim, must pay almost $400 a month with a deductible that is more than $6,000. I don't know many people who can write a check for $6,000 when they have an unexpected healthcare crisis. So in essence, she is being forced to self-insure and has been denied the benefit of even the insurance that she has, even though her premium has gone up more than double, and, of course, her deductible is now $6,000. So to our friends across the aisle who seem to be relishing this moment where we are actually undertaking the hard work of working through a repeal and replacement program, I would say to them that ObamaCare is certainly no gold standard. It is the opposite of what we need to help our Nation's healthcare woes. There is no doubt that it is a failed piece of legislation, full of empty promises, and one we have to scrap. So with the American Health Care Act, starting today in the House of Representatives, we will repeal ObamaCare and deliver better, more affordable healthcare choices to the American people. This bill actually also improves Medicaid. That is another big part of what ObamaCare did. It forced more people onto Medicaid, which is frankly not the best quality healthcare insurance or coverage that exists. I remember back during the ObamaCare debate, I actually introduced an amendment in the Finance Committee saying that if Congress passed ObamaCare, Members of Congress needed to be put on Medicaid--my theory being, not that it was such great coverage, but that if Members of Congress were on Medicaid, we sure would take every step necessary to actually improve it and make sure it works. But this legislation actually does improve Medicaid and puts it on a sustainable path for the future by working with the Governors, because Medicaid is a shared Federal-State responsibility. But right now, it is growing by leaps and bounds. It is at the consumer medical inflation rate plus two, which means it is growing much faster than the economy and, unfortunately, putting unprecedented burdens on our State governments. For example, I know, talking to some Texas legislators, they said it is easily the second--and, if they weren't careful, the largest--expense item in the Texas State budget--Medicaid, or the State share of Medicaid. Of course, Medicaid was designed to help the most vulnerable in our communities and enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Along the way, it became less about serving those who needed it and more about unchecked government spending, as I mentioned a moment ago. So what the American Health Care Act does is it actually puts Medicaid on a budget. It doesn't cut current spending in Medicaid; it just says that it will grow at a slower rate, and it sends much of the authority to work out the best healthcare delivery systems to our State Governors and legislators. It gives States more flexibility along the way so they can use resources to serve the specific needs of their citizens. I know in my State we frequently will come to Washington and ask the Health and Human Services Department and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, for a waiver so we can actually use the Medicaid money and to spend it most effectively--to build either a medical home or to deal with chronic diseases, or some other flexibility we need in order to deliver quality healthcare to our constituents. But the gall of having to come to Washington, DC, and asking permission on how to spend your own money is just too much. I believe, actually, the American Health Care Act is the most significant entitlement reform in decades. That is something we should all applaud--putting Medicare and Medicaid on a more sustainable path, not continuing to spend money that we don't have, and racking up annual deficits and adding to our national debt, which now is in the $20 trillion range, with no end in sight. Both Federal and State governments spend a significant amount of money on Medicaid every year. As I indicated, last year nearly one- third of the Texas budget was dedicated to Medicaid. The fact of the matter is that when the States have to spend so much of the money they tax and collect on Medicaid, then, it is unavailable for other important purposes--law enforcement, education, and the like. There is a crowding-out effect. By responsibly reforming Medicaid, the States and the Federal Government will benefit, all while helping Medicaid work for the most vulnerable in our country and putting us on a path to fiscal sustainability. In addition to entitlement reform, this bill will also get rid of the ObamaCare taxes that have led to hikes in premium costs, fewer options for patients, and more redtape for job creators. I know, being in Tyler, TX, for example, back after ObamaCare passed, and meeting with a woman who said she was forced, actually, to work two jobs because her employer laid her off of her full-time job, so as to come under the cap necessary for the ObamaCare employer mandate. So, literally, this single mother had lost her full-time job because of ObamaCare and was forced to work two part-time jobs just to make up the difference in income. We will also, in this American Health Care Act, eliminate the individual mandate. President Obama said when he ran for office back in 2008 that he was opposed to penalizing the American people if they did not buy government-approved insurance, but of course he changed his tune once he was sworn into office. We will eliminate the individual mandate so people who don't want to purchase a government-approved plan are not forced to buy a plan they don't want and that they can't afford or else suffer a penalty. This bill will also help families spend money on healthcare decisions that make the most sense to them by giving them tools so they can manage their healthcare expenses like health savings accounts. The American Health Care Act is an answer to a promise we made and we have made repetitively in the last three elections since ObamaCare became the law of the land. I believe it is imperative we keep our promise. Some have said: Well, this is a difficult process. I agree. There are a lot of different ideas that people have. I agree. That is a good thing, but in the end, we have a binary choice. We can either keep the status quo, which is in meltdown--which is ObamaCare--or we can pass legislation which offers more choices at affordable prices to the American people. I believe the choice is very clear. It is a great opportunity to reform our healthcare system and Medicaid and move healthcare decisions away from Washington and back to the families, back in the States where we all live, and back in the hands of patients and their doctors. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Trump administration to make this a reality. Again, the choice is between the status quo, which is unacceptable, which is not working, or a better way. I, for one, choose a better way: more choices at a price consumers can afford. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday the House of Representatives released a way forward to dismantle and replace ObamaCare, which will be to deliver on one of our biggest campaign promises made to the American people, not just in 2016 but in essentially every election since 2010. We know ObamaCare has been an unmitigated disaster. Premiums on the ObamaCare exchanges are up by 25 percent. Millions of Americans have been kicked off their healthcare plans, and the economy has been saddled with billions of dollars in new regulations. The fact is, ObamaCare has been one broken promise after another. President Obama and advocates of this law said if you wanted to keep your plan, you could keep it, but that didn't pan out. They said if you liked your doctor, you didn't have to find another one. That didn't turn out to be true either. They promised people across the country would have more coverage, more options, and better healthcare, all at a more affordable price. Well, that ended up not being true either. The truth is, ObamaCare hasn't made healthcare more affordable for a lot of Americans. In fact, in Texas, if you have a gross income of $24,000, you can end up spending up to 30 percent of your gross income just on healthcare costs. That is not affordable healthcare. That is unaffordable healthcare. Clearly, ObamaCare is no gold standard. It is a failed piece of legislation, one that is full of empty promises and one we have to scrap and start over again. Now we have an opportunity to do better for the people we represent, who are counting on us to deliver, to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with options that work. I believe the plan released last night is a major step in the right direction. Patients need better tools like health savings accounts. That way they have more control over their healthcare decisions, and we can keep the bureaucracy out of it. We need to break down the barriers that restrict choice and keep Americans choosing an insurance plan that works for them and their families, and we need to empower employers, particularly small business owners, to provide their employees with the kind of affordable coverage that meets their needs. To sum it up, we need to move healthcare decisions out of Washington and send them back to the States and back to patients and families and their doctors. That will only happen once we repeal ObamaCare and replace it with options that work for more affordable healthcare coverage that patients choose, not that the government mandates and punishes you if you don't buy it but freedom of choice at a better cost and meeting the needs of individual patients. I am glad our colleagues in the House and our friends in the White House fully understand why this is such a priority and why we need to keep the promise we made. As soon as we can do that and deliver on that major promise to the American people--the sooner we do that, a whole lot of American families across the country will feel relief. Nominations Mr. President, this morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee considered the nominations of Rod Rosenstein and Rachel Brand as Deputy Attorney General and Associate Attorney General, respectively. Both of them are longtime, well-respected public servants. Mr. Rosenstein has spent his career serving the Justice Department and Presidents of both political parties. In fact, Mr. Rosenstein started in the George H.W. Bush Justice Department back in 1990, and he served every President since that time. He is a career public servant who has served in a bipartisan manner and has also been confirmed by the Senate. President Bush appointed him to be U.S. attorney and so did President Obama. When the Obama administration needed a prosecutor of the utmost integrity to investigate national security leaks that looked highly political, they turned--you guessed it--to Rod Rosenstein. Put another way, if Rod Rosenstein is not an acceptable nominee, who is? This morning in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I heard some of our colleagues suggest that Mr. Rosenstein needed to make a pledge to appoint a special counsel if he was confirmed as Deputy Attorney General. We had two of our Maryland colleagues extoll his credentials, and rightly so, and call him a person of the utmost integrity and professionalism. Yet they, in essence, wanted him to fire himself once he became Deputy Attorney General and appoint a special counsel to do the job he would be confirmed and nominated to do. He wisely declined to make that judgment, certainly before he has had access to the facts and the information needed. I believe he will make a formidable Deputy Attorney General, but instead of actually vetting the candidates on the merits of their impressive backgrounds and strong credentials, some used the hearing as an opportunity to air their various grievances on the current Attorney General, our former colleague Jeff Sessions. Over the weekend, some went so far as to threaten to block Mr. Rosenstein's nomination if he wouldn't agree to appoint a special counsel. I hope my colleagues in this Chamber don't stonewall his nomination or use it as a platform to disparage Attorney General Sessions. The Attorney General made a decision to recuse himself from a further official role in looking into the allegations of Russian involvement in our election in 2016. I respect his decision. The fact is, we don't need another commission to study Russian involvement in the last election because we have a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Richard Burr and the Vice Chair is Mark Warner--a bipartisan Senate Select Committee that is doing a deep dive into the allegations, including gaining access to classified information which would be important to consider in reaching a conclusion. Yesterday I was out at CIA Headquarters and saw four large binders' worth of classified material, which obviously I am not going to discuss, but it demonstrates that this investigation is already well underway. Members of the committee and our staff are already working with the intelligence community to get the information we need in order to reach an impartial and bipartisan conclusion. The fact is, our Democratic friends have a short memory when it comes to the Obama Justice Department, one of the most politicalized Justice Departments in American history. Loretta Lynch, who privately met with President Bill Clinton while her Department was investigating his wife's email scandal, never recused herself from the matter. Then there was Attorney General Holder. To my knowledge, he was the first Attorney General ever held in contempt of Congress because he refused to cooperate with our legitimate oversight responsibilities when it came to Operation Fast and Furious. Well, he never recused himself and never appointed a special counsel, even though I believe he should have. Compare Attorney General Sessions, who did what he believed was the right thing to do. He recused himself when there was even a suggestion he might not be able to be impartial. He made that commitment from the beginning, well before he was confirmed. He stood by that promise last week. Attorney General Sessions' integrity is intact, and he did the right thing, but Loretta Lynch didn't. Eric Holder didn't. For our colleagues now to suggest that Attorney General Sessions not only should recuse himself but he should resign is beyond outrageous. To suggest that the incoming Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, should somehow abdicate the role he has been nominated for, and to which he will be confirmed, is to ask him to prejudge the case before he has even had a chance to look at the evidence. All I am asking for is our colleagues to have a little perspective. These nominees are the right caliber of people with the exact expertise we need to make sure our Justice Department runs effectively and impartially follows the law of the land. These are the types of leaders you want to handle the big issues facing the Department of Justice. I hope soon our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will turn their attention to doing what the American people sent them to do; that is, to consider legislation rather than dragging their feet and blocking the Trump administration from getting the team he has chosen to work with in various Cabinet positions and sub-Cabinet positions. Hopefully, soon they will decide not to obstruct progress and grind this Chamber's business to a halt but rather will be partners with us, working together to try to build consensus where we can and move the country forward. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Georgia, (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan). THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote:

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:35 p.m. all but 10 minutes of postcloture time, equally divided in the usual form, be considered expired on Executive Calendar No. 9, the nomination of Rick Perry to be Secretary of Energy, and that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the nomination with no intervening action or debate.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today is Texas Independence Day--a day that inspires pride and gratitude in the hearts of all 28 million Texans. Before I came to the floor, I asked the Presiding Officer, who hails from the great State of Alaska, to remind me--and he did--that Alaska is 2\1/2\ times the size of Texas in terms of landmass, not in terms of population. But today commemorates the signing of the Texas Declaration of Independence, when Texas declared itself a republic and independent from the Nation of Mexico. Here in the Senate, we remember the sacrifice of those who came before us and laid the foundation for our State by reading a letter written by William Barret Travis, a defender of the Alamo. That tradition goes back to 1961, when then-Senator John Tower started that tradition. I am told my colleague Senator Cruz will read that letter in full later today, perhaps around 12:30, carrying on this great tradition. So today I wish to express my gratitude for these Texas patriots, many of whom would later serve in the U.S. Congress, including Sam Houston, whose Senate seat I am honored to now occupy. Sam Houston came from his farm outside Huntsville, TX, in 1846. It took him about 3 weeks to get to Washington, DC. Of course, he didn't have a modern mode of transportation, but I always marvel at the fact that it now takes me about 3 hours to get home, where it took old Sam 3 weeks just to make a one-way trip. U.S.-Mexico Border Mr. President, on another matter, last week I had the great privilege of hosting a number of my congressional colleagues at the Texas border. At a time when so many people are talking about the border of the United States and Mexico, I thought it was important to bring colleagues who were willing to come to learn and listen about the impact of trade, border security, and our relationship with Mexico on my State and on the United States. Of course, this border is so important on all of those issues--security, trade, the economy. It is important to see where they intersect. I am glad they had a chance to come to listen and learn last week. We did receive a number of very important and useful briefings from Customs officials, Border Patrol agents, and other Federal partners in three major areas along the border, including the Rio Grande Valley. We were in McAllen, TX, Laredo, and Del Rio. I think what my colleagues discovered--if they didn't already know it--is how varied each part of the border is. This is not just true in Texas. It is true in San Diego. It is true in Arizona. It is true in New Mexico. When anybody suggests that we can attain a goal that we all share, which is border security, by just one solution, I think it is important to examine that conclusion and to test it because, frankly, I think what the Border Patrol will tell you is that what we need is infrastructure, yes. We need technology, yes. Then we need people. That is the formula--personnel, technology, and infrastructure. In my own view, border security is a question of political will. The previous administration did not have that political will. I believe this administration does, and it has been long overdue. I welcome that. We are going to be working with our State and local officials to make sure that they have the resources they need in order to get the job done. At the same time, I think what we were able to demonstrate to some of our friends from out of State is that we have an important trading relationship with Mexico. As a matter of fact, 5 million American jobs depend on binational trade with Mexico. We went to one of the largest land ports in the country. I think, maybe, it is the largest port of the country--Laredo, TX--where some 15,000 trucks enter the United States every day. It is a huge influx of cargo and, fortunately, businesses all up and down and along the border have worked with the law enforcement agencies, with Customs and Border Protection to make sure that we can expedite the flow of legal trade into the United States. At the same time, we police for the entry of illegal drugs and for people illegally entering the United States without proper authority. One reason why my State has done pretty well relative to the rest of the country in terms of our economy is because of our business-friendly attitude. We believe in lower taxes, reasonable regulation, and a welcoming attitude when it comes to people who make investments and who want to come to our State and start businesses or grow businesses. We all know that roughly 70 percent of job growth in this country comes not from the Fortune 500 companies but from those small and medium-sized businesses. We work very hard to be a business-friendly State. Why? It is not just because we care about businesses but because we care about the workers who work at those employers. As one of my former colleagues likes to say, you can't claim to be worker-friendly if you are hostile to the businesses that employ them. That is an inconsistent approach. You need to be consistent. In addition to the issue of illegal entry into the United States by individuals who come without regard to our immigration laws, we also have a tremendous influx of illegal drugs into the United States. I think one of the things I was reminded of that we all should be cognizant of is that when we focus on the illegal drug activity in Mexico, Central America, or South America, we need to look in the mirror as a nation because the only way those cartels exist and make the money they make and commit the mayhem and violence they commit is because of demand in the United States. I was very encouraged to hear Secretary John Kelly--former Marine Gen. John Kelly. He is still a marine, always a marine, but now he has taken off the uniform and assumed the responsibility of Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. He previously served as the commanding general in the Southern Command, as the Presiding Officer knows, which covers the combatant command from south of Mexico down to Central America and South America. So he is very familiar with the region. He made the point, before his confirmation hearing, that there is one thing he would like to see the United States do--effect a major societal and cultural change to deal with the demand for illegal drugs, which fuels all of the cartels and the transnational criminal organizations which plague our security situation along the border and in our neighbors to the south. I want to say that I am appreciative of our colleagues who joined us on the trip--Senators Tillis and Heller, Congressman Rouzer from North Carolina, and my colleagues from Texas, Congressmen John Carter and Mike Conaway. I also wanted to say how much I appreciate Speaker Ryan coming to Texas and the Rio Grande Valley last Wednesday for, unfortunately, a short period of time, but we are all grateful that he came at all--I think, at the invitation of people like Congressman Michael McCaul, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in the House of Representatives. I think it is going to take all of our efforts working together to effect and implement the President's vision of border security, a goal we all share. I think what we all were reminded of is that it is more complex than some people assume, and it is going to take a combination of approaches, including personnel. We need to plus-up the Border Patrol because it doesn't do you any good if you identify somebody illegally bringing a shipment of drugs or illegally entering the United States if you don't have a Border Patrol agent to stop them. Also, the very useful border infrastructure--fencing and walls, for example, in the Hidalgo County area--were actually implemented as a way to improve their levee system when the Rio Grande river floods. They have actually created a dual-use structure that actually satisfies the Border Patrol's need for physical infrastructure along with levee improvements in a win-win situation. I believe that consulting with local officials and local stakeholders, we at the Federal level can come up with more of those win-win solutions. The point is that we have learned a lot, particularly in our military, about how to use technology to keep us safe--whether it is unmanned aerial vehicles or ground sensors or radars. Actually, they have several new aerostats, or balloons, up in the sky that are basically the eyes in the sky, or radar, which do a tremendous job helping to identify people illegally entering the United States and equipping the Border Patrol and law enforcement authorities with the sort of early notice they need in order to interdict people illegally entering the country. I will close by saying that one of the always surprising things I learn when I go to the Rio Grande Valley and talk to the Border Patrol is this. I ask them: How many different countries are represented by the people whom you detain illegally entering the United States? Obviously, the majority of them come from our neighbors to the south, not as much from Mexico as you might suspect anymore, because the Mexican economy is doing better and people are finding more opportunities there. But right now, the majority of the flow of people illegally entering the United States is from Central America. Unfortunately, the tragic situation there where mothers and fathers worry about their children--whether they are going to be killed by gangs or whether they are going to be forced to join gangs--and somehow make the very painful and difficult choice of turning their children over to human smugglers to try to make their way up the backbone of Mexico and into the United States, to be deposited on our doorstop in the United States. Last week when the congressional delegation was in McAllen, we went through the processing area where some of these immigrants from Central America were being processed. I asked a young boy there, who was in the process of being processed--through my regional director, because he spoke only Spanish--how old he was, and he said he was 6 years old. He wasn't unaccompanied in that trip from Central America, but his mother and father thought it was important enough to get him out of that ravaged part of the world, where the prospects are not very good, and to turn him over to a human smuggler to make his way up into the United States, only to find himself at a Border Patrol processing unit in McAllen, TX. My point is that I also met a young man from India, and I asked him: How much did it cost you to get to the United States from India? He said: About $6,000. I said: How did you get here? He said: I took a plane from India. He went through Moscow, he said, and ended up in Central America, where he worked his way up with the help of human smugglers into the United States. I mention that only to point out that we have a vulnerability there where anybody determined enough or with enough money can find their way into the United States. We generally assume these people are economic migrants--in other words, looking for opportunity. We all understand that. Those same vulnerabilities create potential danger for our Nation and our local communities when people with unknown motives exploit those same vulnerabilities to come into the United States. The last point I will make, again, to emphasize the global nature of illegal immigration into the United States is this. We saw that the Border Patrol has several rescue beacons in Brooks County, TX. This is about 70 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border. What happens is that the human smugglers will transport people into the United States and across the river. They will put them in stash houses, really in terrible conditions. As a matter of fact, we went to one of these stash houses. They found 18 migrants in the stash house waiting to be transported up the highway into the heartland of America. One of the checkpoints there is at Falfurrias, about 70 miles away from the border. What happens is that the smugglers will have people packed into a van or some vehicle, and before they get to the checkpoint, they will tell the immigrants to get out. If it is hot, they will give them a gallon jug--a milk jug--full of water and they will say: I will see you on the other side. They go around the checkpoint, out through the very difficult ranchland, and meet up on the north side, and then are transported off. In Brooks County, TX, we went by a cemetery where a number of unknown and unnamed migrants have been buried because they have died due to exposure. Some of these immigrants coming from Central America come up through Mexico. You can imagine the conditions they have been exposed to, and in the heat of the summer, they have been kicked out of a car and told ``meet us on the north side,'' with a gallon jug of water, and some of them don't make it. Of course the smugglers don't care about people. You are just a commodity. You are just a paycheck. So they will leave stragglers behind. Many of the ranchers said they found as many as 100 different dead bodies on their property over an unspecified period of time. But there is a rescue beacon that the Border Patrol has down there that is in three languages. It is in English, Spanish, and Chinese. You might ask, why in the world would you need Chinese written on a rescue beacon where somebody thinks ``OK, I am not going to make it; I need help'' and goes and presses the button on the rescue beacon--that you need English, Spanish, and Chinese. Well, because they have had Chinese immigrants come through that border region, as well, like the young man from India whom I mentioned earlier. And we have had people from Cuba and from literally all around the world, including some nations that are hosts to terrorist organizations. This is not only an economic situation. This is not only a law enforcement problem when it comes to drug interdiction. It is a humanitarian crisis, as well. But it is also a national security issue, I think all the leaders of the intelligence community will concede, given the fact that people from 60 different countries have been detained coming across the southwestern border just in the last year by the McAllen sector of the Border Patrol. We have a lot of work to do. I hope we will be able to work with the President and this administration and in a bipartisan way to come up with the tools we need in order to secure our border. We need to enforce our immigration laws. Of course, 40 percent of illegal immigration in this country occurs not from people entering the country illegally, it is from people entering legally and overstaying their visa. We may not catch up with them until they commit a serious crime and they are arrested by local law enforcement. I think this is what causes so many people to be angry at the Federal Government for not enforcing our laws. And many of our colleagues, me included, would like to do more to fix our broken immigration system generally, but until we regain the public's confidence that we are actually serious about securing our border and enforcing our laws, I don't believe we can have that conversation. I don't believe we are going to be successful, which I would like to see us be. I think the first thing we need to do is to work with the administration in order to accomplish the goal of securing the border. Again, in the matter of political will, we know how to do it. We just need to have the desire to get it done. And then once we have regained the public's confidence that the Federal Government is once again living up to its responsibilities, then I think we can have that more expansive conversation about what our immigration system should look like. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me just say briefly, I couldn't be happier that my friend, the former Governor of the State of Texas, Rick Perry, will be confirmed here shortly as the next Energy Secretary. I know, personally, as do 28 million Texans, that Rick Perry has dedicated his life to public service. He is best known perhaps for serving our State as Governor for a record 14 years. Before that, he served in the Air Force. He served as a State representative in the Texas Legislature. He was elected as our Agriculture commissioner, then served as Lieutenant Governor. As you can tell, the man was born to lead. During his governorship, Texas became known throughout the country as the economic engine that could pull the train of the U.S. economy and could weather even the toughest national economic downturn. Under Governor Perry's leadership, the State promoted cutting-edge innovation and sensible regulation in order to foster an ``all of the above'' energy strategy that revolutionized the Texas energy landscape and the Texas economy. The State became not just an oil and gas powerhouse but the top wind-producing State in the country. We really do believe in an ``all of the above'' strategy when it comes to energy. In short, Rick Perry created an environment where all energy producers could not just succeed but really prosper, and that continues to serve the people of our State well. Texans still benefit from policies that continue to create more energy options for families across our State. Put it another way, Governor Perry has a very strong track record when it comes to promoting energy in a way that makes everybody better off. I have no doubt Governor Perry will take to the rest of the country these same principles that led to the Texas success story, opening America to a new energy renaissance. I look forward to voting to confirm him in just a few minutes. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).