John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on another matter, we were all hoping that the Senate would soon be able to vote on a disaster aid bill that would send funds to States throughout the Southeast and Midwest that continue to battle with the impacts of severe weather. When a hurricane, tornado, wildfire, or whatever the case may be, hits your State, securing funds to help with relief and recovery becomes priority No. 1. I know because after Texas was hit by Hurricane Harvey in 2017, I worked with the entire bipartisan Texas delegation to secure funding that would help both with the immediate aftermath and long-term recovery and rebuilding efforts. We received tremendous support from our colleagues here in Congress, as well as President Trump, in making sure that Texas communities had the funding and resources they needed. Our State has made a great deal of progress since Hurricane Harvey hit, and most Texans have returned to some sense of normalcy, but the recovery process is not over. In February of last year, Congress appropriated more than $28 billion in community development block grants for disaster recovery, with roughly $12 billion intended specifically for mitigation purposes. About $4 billion of that was designated for Texas to fund projects that will improve resiliency and help us prepare for future storms. But as Texans who continue to recover from Hurricane Harvey have learned, getting a disaster relief bill passed in Congress and signed by the President doesn't mean the check is in the mail. It has now been 15 months since that bill was signed, and Texans haven't seen a penny of it. Despite numerous attempts to get the funding untangled from the redtape at the Office of Management and Budget, we are still waiting. That is simply not acceptable. It is not acceptable to me, it is not acceptable to Texans still in need, and it shouldn't be acceptable to the U.S. Congress. I recently introduced a bill that would ensure that the Office of Management and Budget wouldn't stand between communities impacted by disaster and vital funding appropriated and approved by Congress. Once signed into law, it would establish a ``shot clock'' requiring the Office of Management and Budget to release funds appropriated by Congress within 90 days. This change would apply not only to this particular block of funding but to any funds appropriated to the States which are being withheld by the Office of Management and Budget. With hurricane season just about a week away, there could not be a more critical time to act. It is important for us to come together in a bipartisan agreement that can pass the Senate and the House and get the President's signature. I hope that those who are negotiating this disaster relief bill, including this shot clock provision, will continue to negotiate in good faith so we can reach a compromise and reach a result soon. Communities across our country need this money for disaster recovery and mitigation, and they are simply tired of waiting for Congress to act. I am hopeful that any agreement will include this shot clock provision so we can finally get the roughly $4 billion in disaster mitigation funding untangled from Washington redtape and get it to the Texans who desperately need it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of the applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of the act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of H.R. 2157, as amended, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 3 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 23, 2019, at 9:45 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 23, 2019, at time to be determined, to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: David Fabian Black, of North Dakota, to be Deputy Commissioner of Social Security, and Emin Toro, of Virginia, to be a Judge of the United States Tax Court. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 23, 2019, at 9:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it seems a bit surreal but necessary, nonetheless, to come here to the Senate floor to talk about the perils of socialism and its sudden resurgence within the Democratic Party. We have seen our Democratic friends push for policies like Medicare for All, which would completely wreck the system that provides healthcare for our seniors and force all Americans onto the same plan, regardless of the fact that they never paid anything into it, like our seniors have, and regardless of the fact that they may indeed like their private health insurance that they get from their employers. Do you remember when the Obama administration promised in 2013, ``If you like your plan, you can keep it''? Well, I don't really think they meant it, but that is at least what they said. Democrats have gotten so much more radical today that their motto should be, ``If you like your plan, you can't keep it under Medicare for All.'' They have also promised things like free college--and, believe me, ``free'' is popular, especially if you don't think you are ever going to have to end up paying for it--promising anyone and everyone that they can go to college for free. Now, there are some smart things we can do to help prepare high school students and college students to hold down their debt and to make sure that they get the sort of advice and counseling they need to make sure they are studying something that is going to be able to provide them an income with which they can repay the loans that they take out, and there is some work we need to do in that area. Across Texas, I have had a chance recently to go to a number of middle schools and high schools, and in Texas--and I am sure we are not alone--there are many high schools where students can get dual credit, college and high school credit, and some of them graduate from high school with essentially 2 years of college behind them, and it costs them nothing. It is free. I guess that is free. Actually, it is not free, either, but they don't have to pay anything more for it, and their parents don't have to pay anything more for their property or sales tax for it. So that is a smarter way to approach this, rather than this radical idea that things like college can somehow be free, knowing that, actually, there will be somebody that pays for it, whether it is our children, when they grow up and they have to pay back the money that we have recklessly borrowed in our deficits and debt, or by raising taxes, and you can't raise taxes enough on the rich people in order to pay for this. So, inevitably, that burden will fall on the middle class. To put the icing on the cake on these radical policies, you have to look at this Green New Deal proposal that the Democrats have rolled out and really call this the icing on the cake in their socialist proposals. They want to take over the entire energy sector of the economy, and they want to regulate it, and they want to tax it in such a way as to promise somehow something that is never going to be realized. For example, they say they want to achieve net zero emissions in 10 years. Well, Texas, Oklahoma, and other States generate a lot of electricity from renewable sources, particularly wind-generated energy, but there is no way in the world you are going to be able to eliminate things like natural gas and other sources of energy because the wind doesn't always blow and the Sun doesn't always shine. So you are going to need something to provide the baseload when the wind is not blowing and the Sun is not shining. This pie-in-the-sky idea of net zero emissions in 10 years by going entirely to renewables is simply fantasy. They also want to overhaul our transportation system. They want to rebuild and retrofit every single building in the country, but they offer no real details, and, in fact, I think there is a reason for that, because they don't even talk about the details of what needs to be accomplished or the cost there would be associated with trying to accomplish it. The only estimate I have seen is a $93 trillion price tag, but that is an important piece of information that you would think the public would have a right to know, and that is not something the advocates of the Green New Deal have been particularly proud of. Even if this is something a majority of Americans want, we don't currently have the technology or the resources to make it happen. Our Democratic friends know that. So they are, in essence, making a promise for something that they can't deliver because of the price and because the technology has not yet been invented. So what was really bizarre here on the Senate floor was that when the majority leader provided our Democratic colleagues a chance to vote on this resolution on the Senate floor, not a single Democratic colleague voted for it. They voted ``present.'' Well, that is a new one on me. I thought when we came here to the Senate, our job was to represent our constituents and vote yes or no on legislation. To show up and vote ``present'' seems to me like an abdication of that responsibility, but it also is some evidence of how really cynical and insincere this proposal really is. That is not to say that it isn't popular when you start offering free things and you start promising things that are unaffordable or unattainable. Instead of talking about these policies that are unwanted, unachievable, and unaffordable, let's talk about some real solutions. I think that is the responsibility of people like me who say the Green New Deal will not cut it, to which people might ask: Well, what are your suggestions? And I think that is an important and fair question. No matter what your perspective on energy issues and the environment, I think every single one of us can agree on at least one point: We need smart energy policies that will strengthen our economy without bankrupting American families. I would just note, parenthetically, that we have actually made some pretty good progress when it comes to emissions control. Between 1970 and 2017, combined U.S. emissions of six criteria air pollutants have gone down 73 percent. During that same period of time, the American economy grew by 262 percent, the number of vehicle miles traveled grew 189 percent, and our population grew 59 percent. We were able to reduce pollutants by 73 percent at a time when the population was growing, people were driving more, and our economy was growing. More recently, between 1990 and 2017, the United States reduced sulfur dioxide concentrations by 88 percent, lead by 80 percent, nitrogen dioxide by 50 percent, particulate matter by 40 percent, ground-level ozone by 22 percent, and carbon monoxide by 77 percent. From 2005 to 2017, carbon dioxide emissions declined nearly 15 percent in the United States. During that same period of time--and this is a fair comparison--China's annual carbon dioxide emissions have increased roughly by double--twice what they were during the same time period. So I would say that we can blame America first for all sorts of problems. I don't think that is fair, nor is it accurate, and, particularly, when you start talking about the environment and controlling ozone-depleting CO2 emissions. I think there is a better way to approach it, and we need to start with the facts. I think the facts are that we need to form partnerships to leverage the capabilities of the private sector and achieve cost-effective solutions. None of the people advocating the Green New Deal can really tell you how much you would be paying for electricity if we were able to implement the Green New Deal, how much you would have to pay for your transportation costs, or how much you would have to pay to heat or cool your house. We need policies that make sense, that are affordable and achievable, and that will actually bring down the cost of each of those items for the American people. The solution isn't a $100 trillion Green New Deal; it is good old- fashioned, all-American innovation. By incentivizing research into the development of new technologies, we can keep costs low for taxpayers, while securing our place as a global leader in energy innovation. One great example of the type of solution I am suggesting you could learn about by taking a trip to the NET Power plant in La Porte, TX, right outside of Houston, which I did recently. NET Power has developed a first-of-its-kind power system that generates affordable, zero- emissions electricity using their unique carbon capture technology. They have taken natural gas--one of the most prevalent and affordable energy sources that there is--and they have made it emission-free. This is a shining example of the environmentally and fiscally responsible policies we should be advocating and supporting. Last year, renewables accounted for only 17 percent of our total energy sources. That includes hydropower, wind, solar, biomass, and various other sources. Seventeen percent. Natural gas already accounts for more than double that. So if we could take this incredibly common and affordable energy source and make it more environmentally friendly, why wouldn't we do that? Why wouldn't that be a more sensible, fiscally responsible way of addressing this? These policies are important for conservation but also for securing our competitiveness on the world stage. If American companies don't produce these technologies first, well, you bet somebody else will. The heavyhanded government approaches we are seeing from our Democratic colleagues are not the answer. Instead, we have to harness the power of the private sector and build partnerships to drive real solutions. Yes, we need to invest in innovative solutions and encourage the private sector to continue prioritizing reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy sources. When you implement government policies that get government out of the way and let the experts do their jobs, you can be pro-energy, pro- innovation, pro-growth, and pro-environment. I will soon be introducing some legislation that I think will help us move down that road. We know the United States leads the world in emissions reduction, and this bill will build on that success without a one-size-fits-all mandate that would bankrupt our country.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, next Saturday, June 1, marks the official start of the Atlantic hurricane season. It is an important reminder for everyone--from individuals and families to businesses and local officials--to review preparedness efforts to ensure you are ready for anything that Mother Nature may throw at you. There are simple steps, of course, that everybody can take, like reviewing evacuation routes, signing up for emergency alerts, and making a family communications plan. This is also a great time to look at your insurance policies to ensure that you have the right coverage. This isn't the most fun conversation or topic to talk about at the dinner table, but in the event of a disaster, these small steps can make a world of difference. As we gear up for the 2019 Atlantic hurricane season, I can't help but think back on the devastation my State saw in 2017 when Hurricane Harvey hit. This storm was the largest rain event in American history, and some parts of Texas are still in the recovery mode. Harvey brought more than 50 inches of rain to some parts of Houston. I am sure that many Americans can remember the TV footage of the devastating scenes and the heroism of people who rose to the challenge and helped. The roofs of homes were completely torn off and revealed knee-deep water and scattered furniture. Streets looked like rivers that were filled with small boats that led rescue operations. Folks linked arms and made human chains to help save people who were stranded in their vehicles. It was the second most expensive hurricane in history, only behind Hurricane Katrina, with an estimated total cost of $125 billion. While we can put a pricetag on the damaged homes, businesses, and infrastructure, there is no way we could even begin to quantify the impact this storm had on lost loved ones and how much it completely upended so many lives. With that heartbreak fresh on our minds, it only underscores the importance of strengthening our preparedness efforts. Unlike many threats we face, either from our adversaries on the ground or in cyberspace, there is nothing we can do to stop Mother Nature in her tracks. Our only course of action is to be prepared and to build resilient communities that can withstand the impact. We need to continue to do everything in our power to provide assistance to State and local governments so they can protect themselves in the event of severe weather. One may recall, in the wake of Hurricane Harvey and other natural disasters, that Congress worked hard to provide disaster relief to Texas and other States that were adversely affected. While there is still a lot of work to be done, these dollars have helped my State to rebuild and to bring back some semblance of normalcy. I am grateful to all of our colleagues here for working with us, as well as with Florida, California, Puerto Rico, and the other places that were hit at about that same time. I am grateful for the assistance of a bipartisan group of Senators and Congressmen and for President Trump who worked together to provide disaster relief in the wake of this devastation. Yet here is the rub--much of the funding that has been approved for Texas still hasn't been untangled from the redtape here in Washington, DC. In February 2018--15 months ago--Congress appropriated more than $28 billion in community development block grants for disaster recovery, with roughly $12 billion intended specifically for mitigation purposes. About $4 billion of that was designated for Texas, and it could still be used to do things, like to repair wastewater treatment facilities that haven't been fully restored, to carry out important economic revitalization in decimated areas, or to relocate or elevate damaged facilities in order to prepare for the next storm. Yet we have not seen a cent of that $4 billion because it has been tied up at the Office of Management and Budget. I have said before and will say it again: I look at the Constitution. I see what the President's authority is. I see what the House of Representatives' authority is. I see what the U.S. Senate's authority is. My understanding is, when they all agree on an appropriations bill, that it is the law of the land. Yet somehow, this Agency--the Office of Management and Budget--has seen fit to usurp that authority and to defeat the will of Congress when it comes to getting disaster relief to the intended beneficiaries. This undue delay, I believe, is unacceptable but is, sadly, not unique to my State. Other States are facing this same unnecessary holdup in getting desperately needed funds. One of those States is West Virginia, which has been waiting more than 3 years to receive funding after the devastating floods of June 2016. I and my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Manchin, recently introduced a bill that would require the Office of Management and Budget to ensure that these appropriated funds are promptly disbursed. The Bipartisan Disaster Recovery Funding Act would start a timer--a shock clock, if you will--on when the OMB must release the money. It would give it 60 days to get these dollars untangled from the redtape and get them to the communities that desperately need them. It is important to note that this change would apply not only to this particular block of funding but to any funds appropriated to States that are being withheld by OMB. As appropriators continue to work on a disaster supplemental this week, I hope they will include a provision to ensure that States like Texas that have already suffered from a major disaster don't become victims of government bureaucracy. It has now been 467 days since the President signed a bill that would have sent roughly $48 billion to Texas, and it is tough to imagine what communities could have accomplished in that time and how much progress could have been made if simply Congress's and the executive branch's will had been carried out by the Federal bureaucracy. With the 2019 hurricane season only a week and half away, it is critical we get this money out of Washington and into the hands of those who need it so we can begin to work on long-term projects to protect the Texas coast and protect against future storms. Of course Hurricane Harvey was not the first storm to hit my State, and I guarantee it will not be the last. Texans have waited long enough for the funding that we were promised and that Congress appropriated over the signature of the President, and I hope we can pass something soon to improve the resilience in these communities and carry out congressional will. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, one of the favorite parts of my job is welcoming Texans to Washington to talk about issues that they care passionately about. Something I have noticed, though, is that it doesn't matter if they are here to talk about healthcare, taxes, infrastructure, or fever ticks. The same question always seems to come up. They say: Judging by what I see in the news, it looks like nothing ever gets done around here; is that true? I always remind them that compromise and agreement is not exactly clickbait. So while some of the bills we are working on may not consume Twitter feeds, there is a lot of great work being done here on a daily basis. One example of that great work came last Thursday when the Senate passed the Debbie Smith Act of 2019, a major bipartisan achievement that would support victims of sexual assault across the country. I would be negligent if I didn't acknowledge the Presiding Officer's contribution to that great effort in the Senate Judiciary Committee, for which I am grateful. The namesake of this bill is an incredibly brave woman whom I have had the pleasure of getting to know over the years, and I admire her tremendously. Debbie Smith is a fierce advocate for survivors of sexual assault and a champion for victims' rights, and she has become one of the most prominent voices in the fight to eliminate the rape kit backlog. Sadly, Debbie's advocacy was born from a personal tragedy. In 1989, she was at home doing laundry when a stranger broke into her home. He blindfolded her, abducted her, and took her to a wooded area behind her home where he robbed and repeatedly raped her. She reported the crime to the police and went to the emergency room for a forensic exam, but as days, months, and years passed, no answers came. She anxiously waited for her attacker to be identified and brought to justice, but it would end up being years before she saw that justice being done. Like millions of others across the country, Debbie's case became part of the long list of those frozen in time because of the debilitating rape kit backlog. Though exact numbers are difficult to estimate, some experts estimate that hundreds of thousands of rape kits remain untested in the United States--a fact that should upset each and every one of us. Each of those untested rape kits represents a victim who is waiting for answers, who has to wonder each day who their attacker was, when will they show up again, and where are they now. Each piece of DNA evidence holds the key to apprehending a violent criminal and finally providing victims with some peace of mind. For Debbie, it took 6\1/2\ years before the identity of her attacker was discovered. She has made it her mission in life to ensure that no other woman has to agonize for that long. The Debbie Smith Act was originally signed into law in 2004 to provide State and local crime labs the resources they need to end the backlog of these unsolved crimes. Because of Debbie Smith and the Debbie Smith Act, more than 860,000 DNA cases have been processed and 360,000 DNA profiles have been uploaded into the FBI's database. This accounts for 43 percent of all forensic profiles in the FBI's database. While the original purpose for this legislation was to reduce the rape kit backlog, this DNA evidence can help to identify and to convict people who commit other types of crimes and to take more criminals off the street. By the way, we should note that if somebody has been falsely accused, this DNA evidence can exclude them as a potential perpetrator of a crime. It really works to benefit those falsely accused as well. All in all, more than $1 billion has been provided to forensic labs because of this law. The legislation passed by the Senate last week will provide even greater resources for this vital program. The Debbie Smith Act of 2019 will reauthorize the important funding that supports testing DNA evidence so we can eliminate the rape kit backlog in the future and someday ensure that it will not grow again. This reauthorization also reauthorizes important training for law enforcement, correctional personnel, forensic nurses, and other professionals who assist victims of sexual assault. This bill is not controversial, not partisan, and not divisive. In fact, not a single Senator voted against it. It is exactly the type of legislation that should get more attention here in Washington. I thank Senator Feinstein of California, who cosponsored this bill, for working with me to get it over this first hurdle. I now hope that the House of Representatives will take up the Debbie Smith Act so we can get the legislation to the President's desk to provide even more victims with answers and, hopefully, some peace of mind. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this Sunday, I have the honor of joining some of the most courageous, faithful, and inspiring Texans whom I ever met for the grand opening and dedication of their new church. These men and women are part of the congregation at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs. For the vast majority of its 100-year history, this small church was adored by members of the community as a place of worship, but it didn't get much attention on the national stage. On November 5, 2017, all of that changed when a deranged shooter opened fire on their Sunday service, killing 26 parishioners--adults, teenagers, children, and an unborn baby. The church became the site of the deadliest mass shooting in Texas history. This violent attack rocked the entire small, tight-knit town to its core. Every home, every family, and every person felt the impact of the shooter's actions, but what emerged wasn't more of the hatred and anger displayed by the shooter. Instead, Sutherland Springs became a beacon of love and hope. The day of the attack I spoke with Wilson County Sheriff Joe Tackitt and offered my condolences and complete support. Sheriff Tackitt told me about the day's events and said the bloody scene inside the First Baptist Church was horrific, but the response to the tragedy was instantaneous. First responders from the surrounding area, as well as State and Federal law enforcement officials, inundated Sutherland Springs with resources and help. In the days and weeks following the attack, the support continued. Folks from across the country made their way to this small town outside of San Antonio to pay their respects, leaving flowers outside the church, singing songs of worship, and extending a caring hand to those grieving. I joined the congregation 1 week after the shooting for their Sunday service, and it was an emotional experience, to be sure. I was there to offer what I could in terms of support and hope to this grieving community, but what happened was just the opposite. They were the ones giving me inspiration. That day, as the associate pastor pointed out, the church smashed attendance records. It was remarkable to see not only the church community but also complete strangers embracing one another, offering a shoulder to cry on or a hand to hold. There was perhaps no more moving occurrence than Pastor Frank Pomeroy. He and his wife lost their teenage daughter in the shooting. One week after that occurred, he opened that service saying: ``We have the freedom to choose, and rather than choose darkness like the young man did that day, we choose the light.'' Coming from a man who lost 26 beloved members of his congregation, including his own daughter, those words are tough to get your brain around. When he was going through what I have no doubt was the toughest moment of his life, Pastor Pomeroy was comforting those of us in the audience and reminding us not to let evil triumph. As more details about the shooter emerged, that message of hope was even more important to recall. We learned that the shooter had a long history of violence, and a number of red flags had been raised--school suspensions, comments about wanting to kill his superiors, animal abuse, and violence toward those closest to him. He had choked his wife, fractured his stepson's skull, and done time in military prison. Under existing Federal laws, the shooter was prohibited from ever purchasing or possessing a firearm. It was illegal. So how did he get his hands on this weapon that he used to take 26 innocent lives? Well, in short, it was because of a broken system. He was able to purchase four firearms because information about his criminal history was never uploaded into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, also known as NICS. In the wake of the tragedy, you always wonder, how did this happen and, more importantly, what can we possibly do to prevent something like this from happening again? Well, in this case, one answer was pretty clear. We have to fix the National Criminal Instant Background Check System so gun purchasers can't lie and buy firearms that they are already legally disqualified from purchasing or possessing. Eleven days after the shooting, it became clear to me how this system had broken down. The Air Force had simply failed to upload this information into the background checks system so it wasn't there when this shooter bought those guns. In response, I introduced the Fix NICS Act to reform the system and ensure that all Federal agencies accurately and correctly upload these required conviction records. This legislation also encourages States and local jurisdictions, to the extent possible under the Constitution, to do exactly the same. We can't make them do it, but we can encourage them to do it and facilitate their doing so. It has been estimated that some 7 million records, including at least 25 percent of felony convictions and a large number of convictions for misdemeanor domestic violence, are absent from NICS--7 million records, including 25 percent of felony convictions, and a large number of convictions for domestic violence were absent from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. How in the world can we expect that system to work to protect us and our communities if, in fact, the required information is not being uploaded? Each missing record represents a unique opportunity for someone like the shooter at Sutherland Springs to slip through the cracks. So we knew what we had to do to change that. I worked with my colleagues in the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, and encouraged them to support the Fix NICS Act. I was heartened and encouraged by the bipartisan support we got. This legislation passed with 77 Members of the Senate serving as cosponsors. When the President signed this bill into law, it marked a major achievement and step forward and delivered on the promise I made to myself following Pastor Pomeroy's advice: focus on the light and not on the darkness. I am grateful for the support of my colleagues who cosponsored and voted for this legislation, which has made our background check system stronger. It actually made it so it will work the way Congress originally intended when it created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI. I have and will continue to work with the officials at the Department of Justice to ensure that this law is fully implemented as soon as possible. I look forward to joining my friends at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs this week to honor those they lost and to celebrate the grand opening of their new worship center and education building. Today I once again extend my deepest condolences to the families of those lost and to the community that continues to grieve. They have my full support, and I vow to do everything in my power to prevent this type of senseless violence from becoming the norm. No family, no congregation, no community should ever lose a loved one because of an entirely preventable crime. I hope because of this legislation, they never will. I will just say, in conclusion on this topic, what consolation, what comfort can you give to someone grieving the loss of a loved one? I can only think of one thing; that as a result of their loss and their sacrifice, some good will come out of it. I think the only way to reconcile your grief and your loss is knowing that out of your loss, something good will come out of it. I can genuinely say that as a result of the loss of these 26 parishioners at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, we will save lives in the future. There will be lives saved and lives lived as a result of their sacrifice and what we have done working together to try to prevent those types of acts of senseless, preventable violence from occurring in the future.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 5:30 p.m., all postcloture time on the Lee nomination be considered expired; further, that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action. I ask that following disposition of the Lee nomination, the Senate vote on the cloture motions for the Vitter, Bulatao, and Rosen nominations; finally, that if cloture is invoked on those nominations, the confirmation votes on the Vitter and Bulatao nominations occur at noon on Thursday and the Rosen confirmation vote occur at 1:45 p.m. on Thursday, May 16, and that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about Police Week and some legislation we have introduced to honor and support our men and women in blue called, not surprisingly, the Back the Blue Act. With regard to the comments of my friend from Illinois, who was bemoaning the fact that there didn't seem to be bipartisan legislation that could come to the floor of the Senate, be debated, voted on, and passed with concurrence of the House of Representatives and the President's signature, I note that, actually, there is a lot we could be doing together. I have been on the floor a number of times describing the humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border. That is something we could work together to address. I have introduced bipartisan and bicameral legislation with my friend and colleague Henry Cuellar at the House of Representatives that would address that humanitarian crisis and, I believe, take big steps toward stopping it. That is something we could do together. I know the Democratic whip from Illinois doesn't particularly like the idea that President Trump is nominating highly qualified people for the judiciary and for executive branch nominations--the types of people we are voting on today and will vote on tomorrow. Obviously, that is not high on his agenda, but I submit that there are a lot of other things we could do besides fixing this humanitarian crisis. We could work on roads and bridges together. I know that Chairman Barrasso of the Environment and Public Works Committee is soliciting the views of a number of Senators and is going to come to the floor, hopefully, in the next couple of months with some ideas on what that infrastructure package should look like. I actually think that is the best way to handle that. Again, these are nonpartisan issues. Infrastructure is not a partisan issue, but figuring out how to pay for it is the biggest challenge. I note that Ms. Pelosi, Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, and the President met and talked about a $2 trillion pricetag. Well, it seems to me that is backward. We ought to be talking about what sort of plan makes sense and where we can get the votes to build consensus on that plan rather than saying that we want to spend this much money on a plan to come. That is why I think the committee work that is being done in the Senate, in the Environment and Public Works Committee, and, hopefully, in the House is so important. Once the Environment and Public Works Committee makes a proposal and votes that out of the committee on a bipartisan basis, then, the Senate Finance Committee will be asked to come up with a way to pay for it. That is always the part that people want to talk about the least, but it is important. It is important we not continue to spend money we don't have and increase our deficits and debt. Rather, we need to come up with a user- fee model, which is what the gas tax is designed to do, and find a way not to pay for that infrastructure and deal with the congestion and traffic by just borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, literally just increasing the money we borrow and giving that tab to our children and grandchildren to pay back. There are a lot of really good ideas out there and ones on which I think we ought to work together. I don't share the dystopian views of the Senator from Illinois in terms of the Senate. The Senate is not broken. It is just a matter of political will to try to work together to get beyond the petty disagreements that seem to come up every day and to just do our work. Sometimes you don't necessarily appear on TV or have your name appear in lights when you are doing that sort of hard work, but it is essential to get the Senate's work done and, indeed, to get the work of the American people done. Those are some things we could work on together if there is a political will to do so. Mr. President, this week, tens of thousands of Americans will make their way to Washington for National Police Week, our annual opportunity to honor the brave men and women in blue who have lost their lives while protecting our communities. Of course, this includes many officers from Texas. I am particularly proud of the Fort Worth Police Pipes and Drums Band and the Texas Department of Public Safety Pipes and Drums Corps that performed on the National Mall yesterday. Law enforcement is a calling answered by a select few. These brave men and women have chosen a difficult and sometimes dangerous life, dedicated to upholding the law, defending or civil liberties, and protecting our cities and our neighborhoods. They wake up each morning and put on a uniform, never knowing what the day may hold. It requires a lot of courage and sacrifice--both from the officers and their families--and I am grateful for those who selflessly serve our communities each day. Each year for Police Week, we honor the law enforcement community to remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. One of the most emblematic reminders of that sacrifice is the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, which is here in Washington, DC. It is a beautiful tribute to the Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials who have died in the line of duty and features marble walls filled with more than 21,000 names. Each of those names represents an American hero. Sadly, this year, we add the names of 13 Texans to that memorial. These officers gave their lives in service to their communities and to our country, and we thank them and their families for their sacrifices, and we remember and honor their names. Each year for Police Week, we pay tribute to those who go to work and never come home. We honor the lives of those we have lost. We share in the grief of their families, and we promise never to forget the stories of heroism they left behind. While we remember the fallen this week, I hope we will also take time to consider how we can do more to support and serve those who have taken the oath to defend us. Throughout my career in public office, I have had the pleasure of interacting with law enforcement officials from across my State and, certainly, here at the Federal level, including our incredible Capitol Police officers. I am continually impressed and inspired by their professionalism, their conviction, and their unwavering commitment to enforcing the law, and I want to ensure that they have what they need when they put on that uniform with confidence every morning. Last Congress we made a lot of progress, and two bills that I introduced then are now law. The first is the Justice Served Act, which I introduced with my colleague Senator Klobuchar, another example of bipartisan legislation. This bill provides grants to State and local governments to prosecute cold cases by making sure the newly tested DNA evidence is used to investigate and prosecute unsolved cases. The Justice Served Act helps to ensure that violent criminals are taken off the streets and brought to justice. We also passed legislation I introduced with Senator Peters from Michigan to authorize the Project Safe Neighborhoods program at the Department of Justice. This is a nationwide partnership among Federal, State, and local law enforcement and prosecutors who use data-driven, evidence-based, and trauma-informed practices to reduce violent crime. It is inspired by a successful program that was initiated at the State level in Texas, when I was attorney general, but the truth is it started in the Eastern District. I believe it was in Virginia. Of course, it was designed to focus on reducing gun crime and gun violence by targeting those who repetitively used firearms in the commission of violent crimes. We were glad to use the examples in Virginia and in Texas to bring the model to the Nation and to promote this proactive and collaborative approach to prevent violence in our neighborhoods. I am appreciative of the fact that our colleagues have seen fit to work together to pass both of these bills and of President Trump for signing those, but I know there is a lot more that we can and should do. Today I am introducing another piece of legislation called the Back the Blue Act, which I am introducing along with our colleagues Senator Cruz from Texas and Senator Tillis from North Carolina. This legislation sends a strong message to the more than 900,000 law enforcement officers serving in our country that we support them and that we will not tolerate any act of violence against them, period. In recent years, we have seen brutal and inexcusable attacks on law enforcement officers across the United States, including one in Texas that rocked our entire State. In 2016, a man killed five police officers and injured nine others in Dallas. It was a sobering reminder of the danger these officers face every day and a call for us to take action to do more to support them. This bill makes clear our support for these public servants who dedicate their lives to protecting and serving us. The Back the Blue Act would add stiff mandatory penalties and make it a Federal crime to kill or attempt to kill a law enforcement officer, a Federal judge, or a federally funded public safety officer. It would also make it a Federal crime to assault a law enforcement officer. There is zero justification for attacking a police officer--none. We need to show that we value their lives, and we need to make it absolutely clear that we will hold those who carry out crimes against them accountable. The Back the Blue Act sends that message loud and clear. I think it is important to point out that this legislation would also help make our communities stronger by allowing grant funds to be used for efforts that help foster more trust between the police and the communities they protect. This bill would better serve the men and women who work tirelessly in our communities each day. There is no doubt in my mind that our Nation is better and safer because of the hard work and dedication of our law enforcement officials. Here in the Senate we should do all we can to help them do their job as effectively and as safely as possible. The Back the Blue Act would be a great start. I hope my colleagues will consider this legislation and decide to support it and, more importantly, show our law enforcement across the country that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about Police Week and some legislation we have introduced to honor and support our men and women in blue called, not surprisingly, the Back the Blue Act. With regard to the comments of my friend from Illinois, who was bemoaning the fact that there didn't seem to be bipartisan legislation that could come to the floor of the Senate, be debated, voted on, and passed with concurrence of the House of Representatives and the President's signature, I note that, actually, there is a lot we could be doing together. I have been on the floor a number of times describing the humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border. That is something we could work together to address. I have introduced bipartisan and bicameral legislation with my friend and colleague Henry Cuellar at the House of Representatives that would address that humanitarian crisis and, I believe, take big steps toward stopping it. That is something we could do together. I know the Democratic whip from Illinois doesn't particularly like the idea that President Trump is nominating highly qualified people for the judiciary and for executive branch nominations--the types of people we are voting on today and will vote on tomorrow. Obviously, that is not high on his agenda, but I submit that there are a lot of other things we could do besides fixing this humanitarian crisis. We could work on roads and bridges together. I know that Chairman Barrasso of the Environment and Public Works Committee is soliciting the views of a number of Senators and is going to come to the floor, hopefully, in the next couple of months with some ideas on what that infrastructure package should look like. I actually think that is the best way to handle that. Again, these are nonpartisan issues. Infrastructure is not a partisan issue, but figuring out how to pay for it is the biggest challenge. I note that Ms. Pelosi, Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, and the President met and talked about a $2 trillion pricetag. Well, it seems to me that is backward. We ought to be talking about what sort of plan makes sense and where we can get the votes to build consensus on that plan rather than saying that we want to spend this much money on a plan to come. That is why I think the committee work that is being done in the Senate, in the Environment and Public Works Committee, and, hopefully, in the House is so important. Once the Environment and Public Works Committee makes a proposal and votes that out of the committee on a bipartisan basis, then, the Senate Finance Committee will be asked to come up with a way to pay for it. That is always the part that people want to talk about the least, but it is important. It is important we not continue to spend money we don't have and increase our deficits and debt. Rather, we need to come up with a user- fee model, which is what the gas tax is designed to do, and find a way not to pay for that infrastructure and deal with the congestion and traffic by just borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, literally just increasing the money we borrow and giving that tab to our children and grandchildren to pay back. There are a lot of really good ideas out there and ones on which I think we ought to work together. I don't share the dystopian views of the Senator from Illinois in terms of the Senate. The Senate is not broken. It is just a matter of political will to try to work together to get beyond the petty disagreements that seem to come up every day and to just do our work. Sometimes you don't necessarily appear on TV or have your name appear in lights when you are doing that sort of hard work, but it is essential to get the Senate's work done and, indeed, to get the work of the American people done. Those are some things we could work on together if there is a political will to do so. Mr. President, this week, tens of thousands of Americans will make their way to Washington for National Police Week, our annual opportunity to honor the brave men and women in blue who have lost their lives while protecting our communities. Of course, this includes many officers from Texas. I am particularly proud of the Fort Worth Police Pipes and Drums Band and the Texas Department of Public Safety Pipes and Drums Corps that performed on the National Mall yesterday. Law enforcement is a calling answered by a select few. These brave men and women have chosen a difficult and sometimes dangerous life, dedicated to upholding the law, defending or civil liberties, and protecting our cities and our neighborhoods. They wake up each morning and put on a uniform, never knowing what the day may hold. It requires a lot of courage and sacrifice--both from the officers and their families--and I am grateful for those who selflessly serve our communities each day. Each year for Police Week, we honor the law enforcement community to remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. One of the most emblematic reminders of that sacrifice is the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, which is here in Washington, DC. It is a beautiful tribute to the Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials who have died in the line of duty and features marble walls filled with more than 21,000 names. Each of those names represents an American hero. Sadly, this year, we add the names of 13 Texans to that memorial. These officers gave their lives in service to their communities and to our country, and we thank them and their families for their sacrifices, and we remember and honor their names. Each year for Police Week, we pay tribute to those who go to work and never come home. We honor the lives of those we have lost. We share in the grief of their families, and we promise never to forget the stories of heroism they left behind. While we remember the fallen this week, I hope we will also take time to consider how we can do more to support and serve those who have taken the oath to defend us. Throughout my career in public office, I have had the pleasure of interacting with law enforcement officials from across my State and, certainly, here at the Federal level, including our incredible Capitol Police officers. I am continually impressed and inspired by their professionalism, their conviction, and their unwavering commitment to enforcing the law, and I want to ensure that they have what they need when they put on that uniform with confidence every morning. Last Congress we made a lot of progress, and two bills that I introduced then are now law. The first is the Justice Served Act, which I introduced with my colleague Senator Klobuchar, another example of bipartisan legislation. This bill provides grants to State and local governments to prosecute cold cases by making sure the newly tested DNA evidence is used to investigate and prosecute unsolved cases. The Justice Served Act helps to ensure that violent criminals are taken off the streets and brought to justice. We also passed legislation I introduced with Senator Peters from Michigan to authorize the Project Safe Neighborhoods program at the Department of Justice. This is a nationwide partnership among Federal, State, and local law enforcement and prosecutors who use data-driven, evidence-based, and trauma-informed practices to reduce violent crime. It is inspired by a successful program that was initiated at the State level in Texas, when I was attorney general, but the truth is it started in the Eastern District. I believe it was in Virginia. Of course, it was designed to focus on reducing gun crime and gun violence by targeting those who repetitively used firearms in the commission of violent crimes. We were glad to use the examples in Virginia and in Texas to bring the model to the Nation and to promote this proactive and collaborative approach to prevent violence in our neighborhoods. I am appreciative of the fact that our colleagues have seen fit to work together to pass both of these bills and of President Trump for signing those, but I know there is a lot more that we can and should do. Today I am introducing another piece of legislation called the Back the Blue Act, which I am introducing along with our colleagues Senator Cruz from Texas and Senator Tillis from North Carolina. This legislation sends a strong message to the more than 900,000 law enforcement officers serving in our country that we support them and that we will not tolerate any act of violence against them, period. In recent years, we have seen brutal and inexcusable attacks on law enforcement officers across the United States, including one in Texas that rocked our entire State. In 2016, a man killed five police officers and injured nine others in Dallas. It was a sobering reminder of the danger these officers face every day and a call for us to take action to do more to support them. This bill makes clear our support for these public servants who dedicate their lives to protecting and serving us. The Back the Blue Act would add stiff mandatory penalties and make it a Federal crime to kill or attempt to kill a law enforcement officer, a Federal judge, or a federally funded public safety officer. It would also make it a Federal crime to assault a law enforcement officer. There is zero justification for attacking a police officer--none. We need to show that we value their lives, and we need to make it absolutely clear that we will hold those who carry out crimes against them accountable. The Back the Blue Act sends that message loud and clear. I think it is important to point out that this legislation would also help make our communities stronger by allowing grant funds to be used for efforts that help foster more trust between the police and the communities they protect. This bill would better serve the men and women who work tirelessly in our communities each day. There is no doubt in my mind that our Nation is better and safer because of the hard work and dedication of our law enforcement officials. Here in the Senate we should do all we can to help them do their job as effectively and as safely as possible. The Back the Blue Act would be a great start. I hope my colleagues will consider this legislation and decide to support it and, more importantly, show our law enforcement across the country that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 10 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of financial regulators.'' Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on pending legislation and the following nominations: James A. Crowell IV, and Jason Park, both to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Ron A. Bloom, of New York, and Roman Martinez IV, of Florida, both to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service, Dale Cabaniss, of Virginia, to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management, and Michael Eric Wooten, of Virginia, to be Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy. Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting. Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on pending legislation. Committee on Rules and Administration The Committee on Rules and Administration is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Oversight of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.'' Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Science, Oceans, Fisheries, and Weather The Subcommittee on Science, Oceans, Fisheries, and Weather of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Water and Power The Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the years, I have spent a great deal of time on the Senate floor highlighting the evolving challenges along our southern border. My home State of Texas shares a 1,200-mile common border with Mexico, so any major shift in terms of who or what is arriving at the border is felt quickly by my constituents and by my State. In recent months, I have heard from the Border Patrol, local officials, nongovernmental organizations, community leaders, businesses of every size, and just average citizens alike about how the situation today is far more challenging than it has ever been before. In the past, the number of illegal border crossings have fluctuated by varying degrees, but now we have seen a complete shift not only in number but also in the ``who'' of those crossing. While we used to see single adults from Mexico, that is simply not the case anymore. There is no new net migration from Mexico, we are told. As Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost highlighted in a hearing last week, 68 percent of those apprehended are now families or unaccompanied children, and that is on purpose. The human smugglers have figured out what our laws are and how to exploit them in order to successfully place people in the United States by overwhelming our system. The 68 percent of families or unaccompanied children amounts to roughly 293,000 apprehensions so far this fiscal year--293,000. What is more, 70 percent of the unaccompanied children and families are occurring in just two Border Patrol sectors, the El Paso sector and the Rio Grande Valley sector, making the State of Texas and its border communities the hardest hit. The vast majority of those crossing aren't from Mexico. They are coming from Mexico, but they are actually coming through Mexico. So far this fiscal year, 74 percent of the Border Patrol's apprehensions along the southern border are people from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador--what is called the Northern Triangle. This means that in 7 months, nearly 341,000 people from the Northern Triangle of Central America made the decision to leave their homes and to make a dangerous journey in the hands of a human smuggler to illegally enter the United States. Here is another shocking statistic, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan recently noted that Guatemala and Honduras have seen more than 1 percent of their total population migrate to the United States in the first 7 months of this fiscal year--more than 1 percent of their entire population. While it is abundantly clear that the mass movement of people across our border is a problem that must be addressed, it is an understatement to say that Members of the Senate disagree on what a solution looks like. We spent a lot of time debating the semantics of the entire situation without making any real progress. I believe our strategy to alleviate this humanitarian crisis hinges on three important steps: First, we need stronger physical security at the border. The experts have told us that means three things: barriers and, in-hard-to-control places, people--that is law enforcement--and technology. That is what our frontline officers and agents need to do their jobs, and that is what we should provide. Secondly, we need to provide Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol with the authorities--that means the laws-- they need in order to effectively do their job. That includes closing the loopholes that are being exploited by the human smugglers and the illegal immigrants entering the country because they have figured out how to game the system. They know our laws better than most Americans do. Both of these are what are called pull factors--what attract people to come to the United States illegally. They are gaps in our physical security and legal system that encourage Central American migrants to make the dangerous journey north because their chances of making their way into the interior of our country are pretty high. There is a critical third step here. We also need to eliminate the push factors. That is what is driving people from Central America on that dangerous road north through Mexico into the United States. The reason so many of these families are leaving their home countries in the first place boils down to poverty and violence. We know these three countries in the Northern Triangle are plagued by crime, corruption, and a lack of economic opportunities. Sometimes it is difficult for Americans to grasp the deep-seated nature of these problems and why it is so tough to resolve them because it is such a far cry from what most have experienced here at home. In October of 2018, the International Organization for Migration conducted a survey of a group of Salvadoran migrants who banded together as a caravan to make the journey north. It found that 52 percent of the people who were coming from El Salvador cited economic opportunity as their motive for leaving the region, 18 percent cited violence and insecurity, 2 percent said they wanted to unify their families, and 28 percent cited some combination of these factors. Now, this may not be the case for migrants from each country, but it paints a broad picture of how these challenges are affecting them. We must help these countries address their problems, but we can't do it for them. Looking at South America and the successful efforts we have had to help countries rebuild themselves into successful economies with security for their people, there is one that stands out the most, and that is Colombia. What is different about Colombia from the rest of these countries is we had, one, a bipartisan plan that was applied over many years by both Republican and Democratic administrations. We also had a strong partner, a leader, President Uribe in Colombia, which is something we are missing in Central America. Then we had a plan, as the name Plan Colombia suggests, so we knew what we were doing, and we knew how to measure success. We don't have any of these things now as part of our effort to help the Central American countries help themselves. Having said that, I think that is a challenge we need to rise to, to find a way of helping these countries create economic opportunities and security for their people so we can help relieve some of the strain on our own border. This morning, my colleague from Delaware, Senator Carper, and I participated in a discussion by the Bush Center and the Atlantic Council on how to promote economic growth in the Northern Triangle. I think it is very helpful for these think tanks to gather experts and come up with proposals we can consider and then vote on. Frankly, it is very hard for Congress--we don't have really the bandwidth to come up with proposals from the start, so it is helpful to have smart people from around the country, experts, who can help advise us. We know this: One of the most fundamental problems standing in the way of prosperity for Central America is the security crisis. Because of endemic corruption and powerful criminal organizations, a genuine rule of law is missing in these countries and has been for generations. We have had some successes partnering with our closest neighbor in this crisis, Mexico, and I believe we can continue to build upon some of the programs we already have in place there. For example, the United States has partnered with Mexico in recent years through programs like the Merida Initiative to combat drug trafficking, transnational organized crime, and money laundering. There is a need for increased security cooperation and burden sharing to lessen the regional insecurity and damage caused by the growing influence of cartels, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations. We have directed funds toward strengthening communities and empowering the Mexican criminal justice system and judicial system to help combat the rampant culture of impunity that exists in Mexico, and I believe we have made some marginal gains, although there is a lot of work that needs to be done. We have also shared intelligence and cooperated in providing various forms of security. The Bureau of International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement continues to work to develop programs to combat international narcotics and crime, especially in Central America, but U.S. funding for this program in Mexico has stagnated. Additional aid for this program would combat transnational criminal organizations, improve drug interdiction, and train Mexican law enforcement and judicial personnel. Moving forward, we should begin to look at the effectiveness of these existing programs so we can take full advantage of the work they do and ensure they are modernized to confront the evolving epidemic. It is nearly impossible to determine how or if this money is benefiting the people hit hardest by this crime and corruption, and that needs to change. It is no news that the Trump administration has recently announced its decision to suspend aid to Central America. While I believe aid to these countries is important in providing any semblance of long-term stability, I also think it is important to fundamentally examine where this money is going, what we are trying to achieve, and how effective these programs are at achieving that goal. That seems pretty simple, pretty straightforward, but we actually don't have a plan, and we don't have any metrics to measure our progress. We know the problem is getting worse because the number of people showing up on our border just continues to increase. If we are going to ask the American taxpayer to foot the bill, we have a fiduciary duty to them to make sure the money is going to be well spent in pursuit of American interests. We can't do that right now. Every dollar should be responsibly spent on initiatives to strengthen security cooperation, improve governance, enhance public security, and promote prosperity through pro-growth reforms. If that is not the case, then we need to take a hard look at how we can improve our foreign aid program. We need to provide the resources and training to help Central American countries stabilize their governments and their economies. But, again, we can't do this for them. We can't want an outcome more than they do. They need to want this. They need to provide the leadership to be a partner with us to help execute an agreed-upon common plan, and then we need to be able to show the American taxpayers that their money is being well spent because we are making measurable progress. When the people begin to see the opportunity and safety in their home countries, making a long migration northward becomes less of a necessity. I hope we can have these continued discussions here in Congress over the coming months. But even more than that, I hope we can focus on this as a problem that needs to be solved--one that is above politics and beyond politics and one that really threatens the security and safety of our own country because not only do we know that migrants come to the United States fleeing poverty and violence, but we also know these same criminal organizations transmit drugs into the United States. They move people for human trafficking and sex slavery, and this is a challenge for our country, as well as the entire region. We can do this if we will simply focus on it and work together on this as a problem to be solved. But, again, we can't do this for these countries in Central America. I think President Trump was correct to suspend the money we are spending there until we actually have a plan and a willing partner to work with to implement and execute this plan in a way that can demonstrate measurable progress. We have a model in Colombia where this has worked in the past, but around the world where the United States is engaged in nation building, there are not a lot of models for success. There are a lot of examples of failure because of the complexity and difficulty of this, but this is something that should be getting our attention and something that should be a priority for all of us. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time during recess, adjournment, morning business, and leader remarks count postcloture on the Lee nomination.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 7 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to ru1e XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the fullowing committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 14, 2019, at time coinciding with votes, to conduct a business meeting. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 14, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 14, 2019, at 10: 15 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 14, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 14, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing. Subcommittee on Aviation and Space The Subcommittee on Aviation and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 14, 2019, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining The Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining of the Committee on Energy, and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 14, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday, the Judiciary Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration that I chair held a hearing on the humanitarian and security crisis along the southern border. One of the witnesses we heard from was Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost, who leads the dedicated law enforcement officers who safeguard our Nation's borders every day. She has been with the Border Patrol for 25 years, and she has witnessed firsthand the ebb and flow of border crossings during that entire quarter century. Chief Provost announced the most recent data that shows how dire the situation along our southern border is. She described these numbers as off the charts, which I think is a gentle way of putting it. Before I get to the numbers, let me provide some context. In October 2018, the start of the fiscal year, Customs and Border Protection encountered nearly 61,000 migrants at the border. That is higher than any month in the previous fiscal year. At the time, we were all alarmed by the increase, but last month's numbers completely eclipsed those levels. Chief Provost announced at our hearing yesterday that in the month of April, CBP encountered more than 109,000 illegal immigrants along the southern border. From October to April, we jumped from roughly 61,000 to 109,000 per month, a 78-percent increase over just the 6-month period. In addition to that enormous monthly total, she told us about the record-breaking daily total last week. Border Patrol apprehended 5,200 people in a single day--the highest number on record. The problem is that we can't simply send these migrants home under the current state of the law. So the more individuals we apprehend, the more detention space we need. If we don't have the detention space, these individuals would simply just be released into the American population. We will never hear from most of them again, unless they commit some other crime. But the fact of the matter is, we are overtaxing the capabilities of the Border Patrol, of Customs and Border Protection, of the local communities, and of the nongovernmental organizations that try to assist these migrants while they are in our country and in our custody. On certain days over the last month, CBP has had more than 14,000 people in custody, far greater than the capacity they are able to hold. People may ask: Why do we have to detain people? Why can't we just let them go and tell them to show back up for a future court date? We know from sad experience that the majority will not return for that court date, even if they have legitimate claims for asylum. We now know that there are more than 700,000--I think approaching 800,000-- backlog immigration cases waiting to be heard by an immigration judge. This, again, is overwhelming our capacity to deal with these on an individual basis. Back to the numbers, earlier this week the Rio Grande Valley Sector announced that their stations and processing centers were holding more than 7,000 illegal immigrants, and that is just one Border Patrol sector. In a recent television interview, Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan accurately described these facilities as being similar to police stations. Suffice it to say that CBP does not have the facilities or resources to manage that many people in a police station- like environment. If you think that sounds pretty grim, just wait because it gets worse. We aren't only overwhelmed by the number of individuals coming across the border but by the types of people who are arriving. I am talking about children and families who are mostly from Central America. We were told that, all told, Border Patrol encounters, in a given year, individuals from 140 different countries. Since the criminal organizations that smuggle people into the United States are open for business, they are more than happy to take a Bangladeshi, a Yemeni, somebody from Iraq or from Afghanistan or, for that matter, from Iran and bring them across the border into the United States. When our detention facilities were built, they were designed to hold single adults for a short duration, which used to account for the majority of people apprehended. That is simply not the case anymore. The human smugglers and criminal organizations that charge $5,000, $6,000, $7,000 a head to bring people into the United States have studied our laws and have learned how to exploit the loopholes and the gaps. That is why the composition of these migrants has changed so much over the years from single adults to children and to families. In April, 68 percent of those apprehended were either families or unaccompanied children. This has put the Border Patrol in a very awkward position. Chief Provost noticed that her agents were spending now about 40 percent of their time processing migrants and providing care and transportation. She had a picture--a chart--that she demonstrated with a Border Patrol agent nursing a baby with a bottle and another Border Patrol agent cradling an infant in his arms. In other words, instead of being on the frontlines against illegal drugs coming across our border--which contributed to the deaths of 70,000 Americans last year alone and where 90 percent of the heroin and synthetic opioids known as fentanyl come principally from Mexico-- instead of fighting that scourge and stopping that poison from coming into the United States, our Border Patrol has now been diverted to being, essentially, a childcare center handing out juice boxes and diapers. They aren't processing or stopping illegal immigrants or the human traffickers. Trying to deal with these record high numbers, we know that the numbers of people coming across are far exceeding the resources available for the Border Patrol. With so many more people to process and more manpower needed, the Border Patrol has been taken off the line, leaving areas of the border vulnerable to exploitation by human smugglers and drug cartels. Think about it. If you are a leader of a drug cartel trying to move heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl, or other illegal drugs into the United States, why wouldn't you try to flood the Border Patrol with children and families so they would be taken off the line and distracted to take care of these individuals, as opposed to stopping those drugs? Of course, this is part of a larger plan. Unfortunately, the Congress is doing little, if anything, about it. I don't think it takes an expert to see that things are bad, and I hope my colleagues can recognize that we need to act before they get worse. This is a problem that the President can't solve on his own and the Border Patrol can't solve on its own. This is about the legal authorities that the U.S. Government has to deal with this chaos and this humanitarian crisis at our own border. It takes a change in laws passed by Congress. So we must act on a bipartisan and bicameral basis to respond or this is going to get worse and worse. Yesterday Chief Provost compared the current situation to holding a bucket under a faucet. It doesn't matter how many buckets you have if you never turn the water off. Well, that is what we need to do--stop the flow of people trying to enter our country illegally. Last week, Congressman Henry Cuellar--my friend, a Democrat from Laredo, TX--and I introduced a bill called the HUMANE Act, which would at least slow that faucet to a drip and provide serious relief for the personnel who serve along the border. It focuses on the problems posed by high numbers of unaccompanied children and families, whom we do not have the capacity to adequately care for. It requires the Department of Homeland Security to keep families together through court proceedings-- something we all should agree to--and provides safeguards to prevent children from being placed in the custody of dangerous individuals--sex offenders, human traffickers, and the like. It also requires the Department of Homeland Security to establish regional processing centers in high traffic areas and to improve the processing of humanitarian relief claims by requiring those to be processed at ports of entry. Finally, it mandates the hiring of 600 new CBP personnel to alleviate the personnel strain and get more of these highly trained men and women back on the frontlines. I hope we will have the opportunity to review this legislation soon in the Judiciary Committee. Chairman Graham has told me he is willing to do that, and I hope our friends in the House will take it up soon. America would never think of sending our men and women in the military to war without providing them the training, the equipment, and the support they need in order to fight and win our Nation's wars. Yet somehow we have sent the Border Patrol into a battle that is designed for failure. They simply don't have the numbers. They don't have the resources. We don't have the facilities in order to deal with this. We can't just try to staunch the flow while it gets worse and worse and worse and worse. Instead of putting another bucket under the faucet as it runs wide open, we need to turn that faucet off, and the only way we can do that is by Congress acting. It is on us, and we must act and act soon. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I recognize and congratulate the Texas blues rock band ZZ Top on their 50th anniversary. It is only fitting that this group kicks off their anniversary tour in their home State of Texas. With plenty of gas in the tank, Dusty, Billy, Frank, and the rest of their crew will be traveling to more than 60 cities across 14 countries in their commemorative tour. An appropriate reminder of ZZ Top's history, this tour clearly shows they have been able to reach millions of fans across the globe for decades. In 1969, two rival blues rock bands in Houston, TX--Billy's Moving Sidewalks and Frank and Dusty's American Blues--coalesced into one band, ZZ Top. Two years later, they dropped their first album, aptly titled, ``ZZ Top's First Album.'' Bandmates Billy Gibbons, Frank Beard, and Dusty Hill have been writing songs and creating a musical fusion between blues and southern rock since their formation and have never looked back. Though they draw inspiration from music greats like Jimi Hendrix, BB King, Cream, George Jones, and Texas blues guitarist Freddie King, all of their influences transform into one singularly unique sound. In 1973, the band released its third album ``Tres Hombres,'' which catapulted them to the national spotlight with the hit song ``La Grange,'' still one of ZZ Top's signature songs. ZZ Top's momentum and success built during its first decade culminated in the legendary 1976 tour entitled the World Wide Texas Tour, a production that included a longhorn, a buffalo, buzzards, rattlesnakes, and a Texas-shaped stage. If their tour wasn't proof enough that things are bigger in Texas, then maybe their record sales will convince you otherwise. The band has sold over 50 million records worldwide, and their 1983 album ``Eliminator,'' sold more than 10 million copies and included rock hit ``Sharp Dressed Man.'' ``The Little Ol' Band From Texas'' has played for millions of fans across the globe, Sweden to Australia, Japan to Germany. The band is among a select few to say they have toured the globe for half a century. ZZ Top also lays undisputed claim to being the longest running major rock band with the original members intact. Their iconic beards, powerful rock anthems, dedication to music, and impressive artistic talent has sustained them as a perennial rock power, whose music will stand the test of time. Over five decades of creating music, ZZ Top earned eight Top 40 hits on the Billboard Hot 100; six No. 1 mainstream rock hits; and ranked 44th on VH1's 2000 ``100 Greatest Hard Rock Artists.'' ZZ Top's accomplishments throughout the years culminated in their induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2004, where they are recognized as some of the greatest rock artists in the world. I congratulate Billy, Frank, and Dusty on their 50th anniversary and wish them luck as they embark on their year of touring around the world.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in the series be 10 minutes in length.