John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as strange as it seems, socialism is having a bit of a resurgence here in the Nation's Capital these days. Why, you might ask, has this failed economic theory that is so destructive of individual freedom captured the attention of some of our friends in the Democratic Party? I admit, to me, it is somewhat of a mystery. My guess is I am not the only one who assumed that every American has learned the lessons of history and that those lessons are common knowledge. Apparently not. One other possibility is that socialism is a stalking horse for other, less obvious goals. I will have more to say about what the Founders believed about the concentration of government power that would be needed to implement these utopian schemes at a later time. I also will return to the Senate floor at another time to talk about the well-funded efforts, including in the State of Texas, to advance the cause of socialism, unbeknownst to most of my fellow Texans. Maybe self-identified socialists or democratic socialists--by the way, that is an impossible contradiction in terms. You can't be democratic and a socialist at the same time. Obviously, people put those two terms together to try to mask their true intentions. Obviously, these self-identified democratic socialists have never learned what it is or what it stands for. Recent polling suggests that Americans have vastly different ideas about what socialism really means. A Gallup poll, for example, found that 23 percent of the people who responded understood that it means economic equality--though the definition of what equality looks like varies pretty significantly. About the same number of people said they didn't know or had no opinion of what socialism means. Roughly 17 percent understand it to mean government ownership or control of business and the economy. There were a variety of answers, ranging from government-guaranteed benefits to communism, to people simply being social and getting along. That is what some people think socialism is. This confusion about what, exactly, socialism is has allowed its supporters to push this discredited idea back into the political mainstream. The so-called democratic socialists are trying to convince the American people that bigger government and less liberty are the solutions to economic inequality. But they don't just want economic opportunity or equal opportunity; they want equal outcomes. They clearly want to put the government in charge of Americans' lives. To be sure, they will not be honest about the means by which that equality would be accomplished under socialism. They use a lot of feel- good phrases to mask the consequences of their argument. They say things like ``give a voice to the voiceless'' or ``to achieve a more just society.'' What they don't tell you is that in order to redistribute economic benefits, you would have to marshal the power of the government to coerce the American people to give up the fruits of their labor in pursuit of socialist, utopian aims. While socialists will not tell you what the government would have to do to force that redistribution, they like to point to Scandinavian countries as a model for socialism's success. But there are some problems with that. They will say: Look at Denmark. They have free higher education, universal healthcare, and subsidized childcare, and they are doing great. So, they say, socialism works. But facts are stubborn things. For one, Denmark is not a socialist country. Just ask the Danish Prime Minister, who said: Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy. The left argues: It is still a good model. We want that. OK, so how are they paying for all of these programs? It is certainly not just from the top 1 percent of the wealthiest of Americans. It is the middle class too. Margaret Thatcher once said: ``The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.'' Let's look at tax rates. Danes pay some of the highest taxes in the world. In the United States, tax revenue accounts for just over a quarter of the size of our economy. In Denmark, it is 50 percent--or double. Let's also compare our two countries. The population of the country of Denmark is roughly 1/60th the population of the United States. In terms of landmass, it is about 16,000 square miles. Texas is almost 17 times the size of Denmark. So if the model used in Denmark is, one, not socialism and, two, unaffordable, let's instead look for a better example of a country that has embraced socialism. I would suggest Venezuela would be a good candidate. In the late 1990s, then-Presidential Candidate Hugo Chavez delivered impassioned speeches promising to lead Venezuela into a socialist paradise. He talked about the country's wealth being stolen by evil capitalists and greedy corporations and promised hope and change if he was elected. That sounds similar to some of the snake oil being sold by a number of radical Democrats today. By the way, you don't see caravans of people attempting to immigrate to socialist countries like Venezuela. It is just the opposite. We now know that Chavez's promises were empty and dangerous, and while Venezuela certainly saw a lot of change, it wasn't the kind they wanted or the kind they expected. The government took over businesses; they shut down free markets; and they suppressed free speech. As a result, one of the richest countries in the world is now among the poorest. Basic commodities like food, medicine, and water are in short supply; freedom of the press has disappeared; crime rates have skyrocketed; and millions have fled. Of course, it is no surprise that self-proclaimed socialists in the United States refuse to accept this as an example of socialism. But this is the truth. That is why socialism must be soundly rejected. Sir Winston Churchill, who had an incredible gift for words, once said: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Clearly, misery would be a result of a current fad celebrating socialism, and we must firmly and clearly reject it. In a society like ours, based on the free enterprise system, business owners compete for business and make decisions based on what the customer wants and needs, and this helps keep the cost of living low while offering consumers choice. Competition and free enterprise are the opposite of centrally planned and administered socialist economies and the only economic system compatible with individual liberty. In a socialist country, the government owns or controls everything. If you don't like it or insist on going your own way, you will be squished like a bug. Socialism forces citizens to be submissive to the government's plan--a far cry from the freedoms and liberties promised under our Constitution. Most Americans don't want the government to run their lives. They want less government, which is to say they want more freedom. So while things like free healthcare or free higher education or free housing sound pretty good superficially, they are a fantasy and part of the agenda to move the United States toward a socialist, government- controlled economy. Under our free enterprise system, people work to earn their living. The harder you work, the more you benefit and the better you can provide for yourself and your family. That is something we call the American dream. But with socialism, that kind of motivation doesn't exist at all. Why would you put in the extra effort? Why would you work longer hours when you will receive the same pay and benefits as everybody else? Why would you pursue an advanced degree and pour your heart into researching new medical cures when you know, at the end of the day, the person who chooses to do nothing will receive the same benefits you do? Well, you wouldn't. That is why socialism doesn't work. In a recent Washington Post column, George Will defined today's understanding of socialism as this: Almost everyone will be nice to almost everyone, using money taken from a few. This means having government distribute, according to its conception of equity, the wealth produced by capitalism. The problem is, as he said, the government will take and take until eventually there is nothing more to take. Once that happens, the economy will tank; jobs will dry up; taxes will get higher to pay for the benefits promised; and those utopian sentiments will not feel quite so good anymore. The enemy of socialism isn't greed. It is experience. That is why there are no socialist success stories. Venezuela, the Soviet Union, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania--time and again, we have seen socialism fail. That has been the universal experience. As President Trump said in Miami last week: Socialism promises prosperity, but it delivers poverty. Socialism promises unity, but it delivers hatred and it delivers division. Socialism promises a better future, but it always returns to the darkest chapters of the past. Slapping the word ``democratic'' in front of the word ``socialism'' doesn't make it any less radical or any less terrifying. In fact, democracy and socialism are at war with each other. This is not about lifting up the poor. It is about taking our freedom away and turning it over to our government overlords and taskmasters. As so many seem to have forgotten the lessons of history, I plan to return to the Senate floor to discuss this disturbing trend further and remind the American people why socialism is the enemy, not a friend, of our country.

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 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 Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. 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 Thursday, February 28, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2019, at 10 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 Thursday, February 28, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Neomi J. Rao, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, Joseph F. Bianco, of New York, and Michael H. Park, of New York, both to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, Greg Girard Guidry, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Michael T. Liburdi, to be United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, Peter D. Welte, to be United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota, Aditya Bamzai, of Virginia, and Travis LeBlanc, of Maryland, both to be a Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and Drew H. Wrigley, to be United States Attorney for the District of North Dakota, Department of Justice. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``China's impact on United States education system.'

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, maybe the fastest way to put people to sleep is to give a speech on cloture here in the Senate, but I hope that is not the case, because, as my colleague from Iowa just pointed out, this is an abuse of the Senate rules to do nothing but to obstruct and to slow down President Trump's well-qualified nominees for important positions. This is not about their qualifications. This is not about exercising the constitutional responsibility of advice and consent. In virtually every instance in which the clock has been burned to get to an eventual vote, these largely noncontroversial nominees have been confirmed overwhelmingly. Call it part of the ``Trump derangement'' syndrome or the ``never Trump'' effort. It is very clear to me that rather than take these nominees one at a time, treat them fairly, assess their qualifications, and vote on their nomination, these people are being delayed and denied an opportunity to serve, and many of them have just simply given up because of the backlog of nominations. It is unfair to them, it is unfair to this administration, and it is completely an abuse of the Senate rules. We know that our Democratic colleagues have unnecessarily blocked nominees, put them through the ringer in hearings, and, in one particular case--the Kavanaugh nomination--engaged in an all-out smear campaign. This treatment has grabbed headlines, but the story that doesn't get much attention is what I want to talk about now--this practice of eating up time on the floor, using every second of the rules to essentially eliminate the possibility that we can take up other bipartisan legislation or consider these nominees on any sort of efficient and effective basis. As a result of the work, these nominees are being denied an opportunity to serve, the floor is being occupied by nominations that are uncontroversial, and we are unable to get to other important work that the American people want us to do. Now, it is true that the Senate is not known for speed, and, more often than not, there is a good reason. When we are appropriating taxpayer dollars or debating sanctions on hostile governments or negotiating changes to our healthcare system, speed is not always an asset. But when it comes to confirming nominees--those who already have had a hearing, who aren't controversial, who have already received a vote in committee--the process should be able to move rather quickly and efficiently. But, as I said, this is part of a concerted effort to undermine the Trump administration, to deny them the appointees necessary for them to conduct the Nation's business, and, in many instances, these are Ambassadors who should be representing the United States of America in foreign countries where it is important we maintain good communication with those other countries. Over the last 2 years, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have forced votes on nominees who in previous years would have sailed through the Senate. Let's look at some of these numbers. You can see how much red there is on this chart--cloture votes in the first Congress. President Trump had 128 cloture votes, President Obama had 12, President Bush had 4, and President Clinton had 8. What that means is that, for example, in the Clinton administration, there were 120 nominees who were confirmed without the necessity of even going through the procedure of cloture. Frequently, these nominees are either passed by voice vote or unanimous consent or at some agreed upon time. Even fewer required a cloture vote under President George W. Bush. There were 12 under President Obama and 128 under President Trump. If we were to continue down this same path, we would not be able to do anything else except consider nominations by this President, and we still wouldn't get to the end of the list. Our Democratic colleagues don't want to hold votes on these nominees to support or oppose a nomination; they simply want to waste the Senate's time and to test the patience of the American people. The majority of these nominees, as I said, aren't controversial. Nearly half received the support of 60 or more Senators during the cloture vote, and more than one-third got 70-plus votes. As I said, the delay and obstruction have led to a long list of vacancies across every Department and Agency. Critical leadership positions have gone unfulfilled while the nominees await confirmation votes from the Senate. As I said, many have simply given up, unwilling to accept any more disruption in their personal lives in the vain hope that perhaps someday, somehow, they will get a vote in the Senate. This list includes Ambassadors, Federal judges, Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, and inspectors general. The list continues to grow while our Democratic colleagues insist on votes that will not change the outcome. It is one thing to have a nominee whose qualifications are controversial or where a debate would enlighten the Members of the Senate on how best to cast their vote, but that is not what is happening here. Despite our repeated pleas for Democrats to cooperate, things aren't going to change. That is why the rules change we are contemplating is so important. It would expedite the process for many nominees to receive a vote on the floor. It won't change the number of votes they need to get confirmed--they will still need to get a majority of votes--or tilt the scale in their favor in any way; it will simply make sure we are not wasting time that is not being used in order to delay or defeat nominations. Ironically, we have been told by our Senate colleagues on the other side that if we were to pass a rule limiting the postcloture time to 2 hours and we would start it in 2021, at the end of President Trump's current term of office, they would vote for it. So this is really an unprincipled and nakedly partisan approach, because while they are willing to do it for the next President--and that could well be a second Trump term, or it could well be another President--they won't do it now, which demonstrates the hypocrisy they are exhibiting. What would happen is, a nominee would get a hearing in front of the appropriate committee. That would be debated, and there would be a vote up or down. If the nominee was passed out of the committee and made available to come to the floor, the Senate majority leader could still file a paper asking for a cloture vote. If that was obtained, then the postcloture time would be reduced from 30 hours to 2 hours. In the meantime, there would be an intervening day during which debate would occur. Every Senator would still enjoy the right to vote against any nominee they don't support, but to just burn time for time's sake is an abuse of the Senate rules and needs to stop. It is not just hurting these nominees; it is not just hurting the Senate; it is hurting the country. These Ambassadors, judges, and appointed officials who serve in the State Department, the Department of Defense, and the inspectors general who make sure that taxpayer dollars are spent legally and efficiently and that people are doing their jobs--none of those positions are able to be filled. I would point out that this rule change does not apply to all nominees. High-level Cabinet positions and Supreme Court Justices would still receive the 30 hours of debate time after 51 Senators have voted to proceed to that vote. It is important to note that this type of rules change isn't new. Actually, in 2013, there was a negotiated, bipartisan standing rule when Majority Leader Harry Reid and the current Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, introduced a similar change to speed up the process, and this simply builds on the foundation they laid down. So if we asked them to do now what was done then on a bipartisan basis, their answer will be no--for no good reason other than it is President Trump who would presumably benefit from this restoration of that same process. As I said, the real hypocrisy of their position is indicated by the fact that they said they would vote for this rule, but they don't want it to take effect now. They want it to take effect in 2021. In short, they appear to believe that what we are trying to do is an important rules change to make, but they don't want to do it if it benefits a President they clearly despise. This political theater is being orchestrated by Senate Democrats and is impacting our ability to carry out our constitutional duty of advice and consent. I believe this is a necessary step to get the Senate back on track, and I will support this rules change when it comes to the floor for a vote and would encourage all of my colleagues to do the same. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, yesterday evening the Senate had an opportunity to go on record and show our constituents that we supported the most vulnerable among us. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would require doctors to treat a baby, once it is born, with ordinary medical assistance, something they would do under any other circumstances, even though this entailed surviving an abortion. If you ask the American people, they would say this is just common sense. In a recent poll, more than three-fourths of Americans said they support providing medical treatment for babies who survive abortions. I can't imagine what the other 25 percent are thinking. But there are no Federal laws requiring healthcare providers to care for these babies just as they would any other infant in their care, and for some Members of the opposing party, they are just fine with that. We all know that a few weeks ago, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam made disturbing comments about how to not care for certain newborns. He was asked: What would you do with a child with birth defects? He said: Well, the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated, if that is what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. Let me be clear. The Governor, who is a pediatrician, by the way, essentially advocated for infanticide--killing a child who was born alive. Instead of saying, ``well, it is my duty as a physician under the Hippocratic Oath to provide care to save the child,'' he believes the child ought to be made comfortable, and then the mother and doctor sit down and decide whether the child should live or die. That is not healthcare. That is murder. I believe the Senate has a duty to act and ensure that no child born alive is subjected to the treatment described by Governor Northam. The bill we voted on last night would protect newborns who have survived abortions and ensure that they receive the same level of care that any other newborn baby would. It builds upon a previous law, which the Senate passed unanimously, called the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act. That bill passed unanimously in 2002, and it clarified that every infant born alive at any stage of development is a person, regardless of the manner in which they were born. Yet yesterday, 44 Senators voted to allow that same person's life to be ended with impunity. The legislation we voted on yesterday would simply clarify that the infants who survive abortions are entitled to the same lifesaving care that other babies should receive. That is why it is so shocking to me that 44 of our colleagues chose to vote against even proceeding to a debate and a vote on the matter. I am trying to think of a historical counterpart to this. I was reminded of a book I read not long ago called ``Eichmann in Jerusalem.'' This is about the trial of Adolf Eichmann after the atrocities of the holocaust, during which 5 million Jews were killed. The author, Hannah Arendt, was trying to figure out what kind of monster could basically provide for the machinery that ultimately would take the lives of 5 million Jews. What she saw when she looked at Eichmann was not some monster that looked different from you or me. Unfortunately, what she saw was somebody who looked exactly like you and me. She wrote about the moral collapse associated with the holocaust. She noted that ``in the Third Reich, evil lost its distinctive characteristic by which most people had, until then, recognized it.'' She said that the problem is that at that point it became a ``civil norm.'' She wrote: Evil comes from a failure to think. It defies thought, for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. ``That,'' she said, ``is the banality of evil.'' She concluded by saying: Nearly everybody who attended the trials of mass killers after the war, some of them respected doctors and pharmacists, came away with the disconcerting impression that the killers looked pretty much like you and me. So while Republicans and Democrats disagree on a range of issues, this should not be one of them. If we have one shred of our humanity left, we ought to agree that protecting human life is essential. This should have been a simple vote for every single Member of this body. I can't tell you how disappointed I am that 44 of our colleagues decided to vote no. I was proud to vote yes on the bill, yes to protecting these newborn babies, yes to equal medical care for all infants, and yes to life.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on Monday, I was in El Paso, TX, to talk with some of my constituents about the challenges that exist along our southwest border and how we can work together to address them. It is almost surreal to have people here in Washington, DC, who have never been to the border and whose, perhaps, only supposed knowledge is from novels they have read or movies they have seen. Having spent quite a bit of time along the border of Texas and Mexico, myself, I can tell you it is a unique part of our country and certainly a unique part of my State. The people you learn the most from are not the elected officials who serve here in Washington but rather from the Border Patrol, the sheriffs, the mayors, and countless others who live and work along the border. They can provide, I think, the kind of expert knowledge that we need in order to address the challenges that exist. What they tell me and what I have learned is that there is no one- size-fits-all, because you can look at urban environments, like El Paso, or you can go out to Big Bend, which has thousands-of-feet-high cliffs overlooking the Rio Grande. Obviously, a physical barrier in one place, like in highly trafficked urban areas, is one situation, but putting it atop a 3,000-foot cliff is another. So no one-size-fits-all solution works. That is why it is important to listen to the stakeholders who live and work in these communities, and this is key to actually doing something with the feedback they provide. What I have constantly been reminded of is that border security is a combination of three parts: physical barriers in some hard-to-control locations, personnel, and technology. What is best for a high-trafficked urban area, as I said, is probably much different than what is good for the vast expanses between the ports of entry. Figuring out what we need or where we need it is not a decision that ought to be micromanaged in Washington. It should come from the experts who know the threats and challenges along every mile of the border. While I was in El Paso, we also talked--as we must--about the important role the border plays with our economy. Border communities in Texas depend on people and goods moving legally through our ports. For example, in Laredo, TX, alone, about 14,000 trucks pass each day through the ports of entry. It is one of the largest if not the largest land-based port in the United States. These goods need to move legally through our ports, and any disruption in legitimate international commerce can have a swift impact on these communities. For the people of El Paso, for example, border security means much more than just safety. It means economic security as well. Just as it is important to keep the bad actors out, it is equally important to promote efficient transit through our ports for legitimate trade and commerce. On Monday, I also had a chance to reconnect with my friend Mayor Dee Margo, the Mayor of El Paso. Among other things, we talked about the importance of ensuring that in our efforts to create a strong border, we are not neglecting our ports of entry. In recent months, a number of El Paso Sector Customs officers have been sent to other high-need areas along the U.S.-Mexico border. The personnel shortage has resulted in increased wait times for both pedestrian traffic and commerce. Certainly, fewer CBP agents mean a reduced vigilance in terms of screening out contraband and other things that we don't want coming into the country. The goods moving through the ports in El Paso fuel not just the local economy, as I said, but also that of the entire State of Texas--and, I would argue, of the Nation. I share the mayor's concerns on the harmful impact these slowdowns at the ports of entry can have. As we debate the importance of securing our borders to stop the illegal movement of people and goods, we shouldn't neglect the importance of facilitating legal movement through our ports. We need to do both, whether that means providing additional funding for infrastructure improvements or scanning technology to make sure the ports of entry aren't exploited by drugs in vehicles or other places where they are hard to find. In the absence of scanning technology, if we are unable to find them, the cartels win, and the American people lose. We also know that in addition to that technology, we need additional personnel. I hope my colleagues listen to the feedback that we have all gotten from the experts and these local stakeholders and take seriously the economic impact on our ports of entry as well. As I said yesterday, I look forward to reviewing the details of the funding agreement struck by the conference committee, and I hope that, in addition to physical barriers where appropriate, it reflects these principles of smart border security, because when we listen to the experts--the law enforcement officials who work along the border and in the communities--that is when we move in the right direction, spending money in a responsible and smart way rather than just pursuing political agendas from Washington.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this Friday is our deadline to fund 25 percent of the Federal Government, which remains unfunded as a result of the short-term continuing resolution that was passed to keep it open until February 15, pending negotiations to deal with border security measures. During the last shutdown, for 35 days, we know that 800,000 Federal workers were not paid, including some 36,000 Texans. During that time, we heard about families who could not afford to buy the necessities of life, whether they be medicines or providing the funding to run the heat in their homes and to keep their utility bills low--families who went from donating food at food banks to then being a recipient of food at those food banks. Even though this all began as a battle over border security, the impact was much bigger. Employees from the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration--the folks in the blue shirts who usher us through security at airports--NASA, or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the IRS, and a whole host of other Federal Agencies were caught up in the crosshairs of our disagreements here and forced to deal with financial uncertainty for weeks on end. I personally believe that we were sent here to govern, not to preside over shutdowns, and that we make tough decisions every day here by negotiation and compromise. That is the way the Constitution contemplates how the legislative branch will act. None of us are dictators. None of us can dictate 100 percent of what we want on any given occasion, so that means we have to negotiate. We have to compromise, and obviously a shutdown represents a failure to compromise. I have to say that compromise and negotiation require good faith. They require a desire on the part of all parties to actually solve a problem, not to play ``gotcha'' and point score when it comes to politics. Unfortunately, this last shutdown was a result of some outlandish positions taken by the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, and the Democratic leader here in the Senate, Mr. Schumer. They said, for example, ``Let's be crystal clear. There will be no additional appropriations to pay for the border wall. It is done.'' That was the Democratic leader Senator Schumer. Then Ms. Pelosi said, ``A wall, in my view, is an immorality.'' She said it is immoral. I agree with President Trump when he said what is immoral is allowing the poison that is imported across our borders from the South, which has contributed to the 70,000 drug overdose deaths we saw last year as monitored and reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; that is immoral--not doing anything about that, not dealing with the human trafficking, the sex slavery, and the involuntary servitude of young women and children. That is immoral. I realize we have gotten caught up in this silly game of semantics. Some people call a wall a fence, and others call a fence a wall. But we all know what we are talking about are physical barriers that form a necessary part of border security. Again, I go back to the experts. I come from a border State with 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico. I look to the Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security to answer this most basic question. My question to them is this: What do you need in order to accomplish the mission we have asked you to accomplish? What the experts have always told me is that they need a combination of three things. They need physical barriers in some locations that are hard to control. They need technology to scan the trucks and the cars that come over the ports of entry; they need ground sensors and radar in the places between the ports of entry. Then they need the boots on the ground; they need the Border Patrol, the law enforcement agents, in order to detain people who come across the border. I really find this debate over this one component of border security, this physical barrier component, surreal. It really is hard work to try to avoid a solution where the solution is staring you right in the face, where we know that if people of good will were willing to talk and to work through them, we could solve these problems, just as we do so many other problems every day. I was glad to learn that last night the negotiators on the conference committee reached at least an agreement in principle to fund the remaining Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government. I know we are all eager to see the final details of the agreement and to learn exactly what was included, and I understand, based on reports we heard at lunch, it will probably be tomorrow before we can see the language and make sure the language reflects what we see reported in the press. As I said, again, I hope this agreement takes into account what we have reportedly heard from the experts--that smart border security is a combination of barriers, technology, and personnel. I also hope it includes funding for our ports of entry to promote the legal movement of goods and people across the border without compromising security. I think we all know that a lot of the high-end drugs--what I am talking about are heroin, fentanyl, methamphetamine, and the like--that come across the ports of entry are secreted within compartments in trucks and cars, and what we need is to have the scanning devices to be able to locate those places within those vehicles so that we can find those drugs and hold the people smuggling them accountable. But that means that at our ports of entry we are going to need the personnel and the technology in order to do that. So I hope the negotiators on the conference committee have provided adequate funds for that, in addition to the physical barrier. For my constituents in Texas, a secure border is not just a political talking point, it is a vital part of their lives. Our communities depend on Customs and Border Protection to stop both dangerous people and goods from crossing illegally. But they also depend on Customs and Border Protection to facilitate legitimate trade and travel, which fuels our economy. About $300 billion of goods were transported both to and from Texas ports of entry along the border last year alone. So I hope this agreement includes funding to strengthen our border and to protect our people. I want to thank all of our colleagues who have been engaged in these negotiations for their continued commitment to finding a solution that everybody can support, and I plan to review the text as soon as possible. I happened to come back from El Paso last night with President Trump, who was reviewing the bare bones of this proposal, and he has not yet said whether he will sign it, but I want to make a couple of points. First of all, if this agreement does, as I believe it is reported to do, provide for 55 miles of additional physical barriers along the border, then the President has won, and Ms. Pelosi has lost because she said not one penny more--I am sorry, that was Senator Schumer--for border walls or border barriers. Ms. Pelosi called them immoral. But if Democrats on the negotiating committee have now agreed to 55 miles of additional physical barriers, it sounds to me as though they are not in the same place Ms. Pelosi is. I don't say that to try to blow up the deal because, frankly, I believe a shutdown would be a mistake. But what I would encourage the President to do is to count his victory here and then to build on that. He has additional authorities, particularly under the Defense authorization bill, on a nonemergency basis, to reprogram money that has been appropriated already for the Department of Defense. There are other areas that Congress has already approved the President's reprogramming money through previously passed legislation, so I would encourage the President to bank the win and then to build on that and to do what is necessary to protect our country and to secure our border. Nomination of William Barr Madam President, on another matter, this week the Senate will vote on the nomination of William Barr to serve as Attorney General of the United States. It is hard for me to imagine a better qualified person for that job. It is particularly impressive to me that some 27 years after he last held the job as Attorney General, he would be willing to step forward and accept the responsibilities of that job once again. But that is exactly what he has done. More than two decades ago, he was nominated and unanimously confirmed for three incredibly important positions at the Department of Justice, culminating in the very position he is being considered for right now. Since he first held the job of Attorney General, times have changed-- something he acknowledged during his hearing. But his steadfast commitment to the rule of law has not shifted. That is undoubtedly why Mr. Barr has received the endorsement of former Attorneys General, Department of Justice alumni, State attorneys general, and several important law enforcement groups. He has also received support from some of the toughest critics in Washington: the editorial boards of some of the newspapers. Following his hearing, the USA Today editorial board wrote a piece called ``Confirm William Barr as attorney general,'' and that says it all, although they went on to say: There are times for Democrats to confront President Trump and times not to. The nomination of William Barr to be attorney general, pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, is an example of the latter. In that piece, the editorial board discussed something that was a major focus during Mr. Barr's hearing--the Mueller investigation. Our Democratic colleagues were eager to hear him say that he would allow the special counsel to continue his investigation without intervention, which he did repeatedly. At one point, Mr. Barr said: ``I believe it is in the best interest of everyone--the President, the Congress, and, most importantly, the American people--that this matter be resolved by allowing the special counsel to complete his work.'' I agree with that, and I agree with the conclusion of USA Today's editorial board that the sooner he is on the job the better. We saw, I would note, pieces from the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and the New York Daily News to the same effect. Even the Washington Post believes that Democrats should vote for William Barr. They wrote that he ``came across as a highly qualified person and committed to the traditions, procedures and mores of the Justice Department.'' Good for them. The headline of that editorial was ``Confirm William Barr--and hold him to his pledge of independence.'' I have said before, and I will say it again, that being Attorney General is probably the most difficult job of the President's Cabinet because not only are you the chief law enforcement officer for the country, you are really a political appointee of the President. But I am satisfied that Mr. Barr can balance those two responsibilities in a responsible and ethical sort of way. I believe he will bring the same independent voice to the DOJ that he did more than two decades ago and will continue his longstanding reputation of being an unwavering defender of the rule of law. I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will judge this nominee based on his qualifications, not on the person who nominated him. It has been common, it seems these days, that anyone or anything that President Trump is for, our Democratic colleagues reflexively oppose without thinking about the issue at hand or the qualifications, in this case, of the nominee. I hope, rather than a reflexive, partisan rejection of President Trump's nominee to be Attorney General, that our colleagues will give him the fair consideration that he is due and will provide, as the Constitution provides, advice and consent on this nomination, and join me in consenting to this nomination, and confirm William Barr as the next Attorney General of the United States. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a vote on William Barr to be the next Attorney General of the United States. During his confirmation hearing a few weeks ago, we saw an articulate, measured, and highly capable individual. There is no question in my mind why two separate Presidents have selected him to lead the Department of Justice. Throughout his impressive career, Mr. Barr has displayed both legal acumen and an unwavering commitment to the rule of law--a basic prerequisite to serve as the highest law enforcement officer in the country. I will add that the Attorney General is a unique member of the Cabinet because, as I said, he is the chief law enforcement officer of the country, but he is also a political appointee of the President. It takes some skill to navigate that very thin line and to do it with distinction and honor--something that Mr. Barr has done before. President George Herbert Walker Bush recognized the talent in Mr. Barr more than 25 years ago and nominated him for not one, not two, but three important roles in the Department of Justice. Mr. Barr testified before the Judiciary Committee for each of these positions: Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, Deputy Attorney General, and, finally, Attorney General of the United States. All three times, he was unanimously approved by the Senate. As impressive as Mr. Barr was during these confirmation hearings, he was even more impressive once he was actually on the job. It is clear he made a lasting impression on his colleagues at the Department of Justice. A group of 120 former Justice Department and law enforcement officials have written a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee supporting Mr. Barr's nomination. The list includes former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General, FBI Directors and Deputy Directors, a Department of Homeland Security Secretary, and a host of high-ranking DOJ officials. They wrote: ``Bill is that rare combination of intellect and principle who has served our country in the Department of Justice with great distinction and then excelled as a senior executive in the private sector.'' They continued: ``Bill also developed great partnerships with state and local law enforcement around the country through the Department's Executive Working Group, creating joint task forces to combat white collar crime, drug trafficking and violent crime across the nation.'' Knowing that, it is no surprise he received the endorsement of several organizations that represent law enforcement, like the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Major County Sheriffs of America, and the National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition, as well as others. I quote our friend, the ranking member Dianne Feinstein herself, who said: ``No one can say he isn't qualified.'' We are fortunate to have such an individual who is willing to, once again, step back into the spotlight to serve his country. To me, that speaks volumes. It would be the easiest thing in the world for Mr. Barr to say: Well, I have been there and done that. Now I have worked in the private sector, been a success, and I am ready to hang it up or at least enjoy my retirement years with my grandkids and my wife. That is not Bill Barr. Bill Barr is a person driven by his sense of duty and his desire to serve the American people. To me, that is one of the distinctions about him that impresses me the most. It would be easy for him to take a walk and to not accept this responsibility during these polarized times, but he is willing to serve, and I think we ought to embrace that willingness to serve and confirm him. I was proud to support Mr. Barr's nomination in the Judiciary Committee today, and I look forward to voting yes on his nomination next week when we vote on it. Although Mr. Barr's name has been in the headlines, there are also a number of well-qualified nominees for Federal judgeships across the United States who were reported out of the Judiciary Committee today, including four Texans. They are J. Campbell Barker and Michael Truncale to be U.S. district judges for the Eastern District of Texas, Matthew Kacsmaryk to be U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Texas, and David Morales to be U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Texas. These individuals are principled and highly qualified for the Federal bench. Senator Cruz and I worked closely with our Federal Judicial Evaluation Committee--a bipartisan committee of the best lawyers in the State of Texas--to screen these individuals and then make recommendations to the White House. I am confident in their ability to serve Texans by faithfully applying the law, and I hope the Senate will move quickly to confirm them.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, finally, following the President's call for unity and bipartisanship in his State of the Union Address earlier this week, I am glad to see the Senate responding to that call and taking up legislation that we are currently on that has received broad bipartisan support in the Senate just today. Near the end of the last Congress, the Senate and the House reached an agreement on a package of more than 100 individual lands bills that received broad bipartisan support. Unfortunately, we ran out of time and weren't able to get it done, but next week, we will have the opportunity to vote on this important piece of legislation and send this bipartisan bill to the President's desk and demonstrate, once again, to the American people--lest anybody be in doubt--that we are capable of working together in a bipartisan way in advancing the interests of the American people. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have been an advocate for America's outdoor sporting traditions and commonsense wildlife conservation policies. Enhancing and expanding sportsmen's access to Federal lands has been on Congress's to-do list for years, and this legislation will help make that a reality. This package includes a series of bipartisan provisions negotiated over years, which will provide increased opportunities for sportsmen and sportswomen to utilize Federal lands for hunting and fishing. Those changes are coupled with additional ones for conserving and enhancing wildlife habitats to ensure we are protecting these lands for generations to come. This legislation also authorizes dozens of land swaps--exchanges--and conveyances, which will deliver big changes to communities across the country, including in my State. For example, the Lake Fannin recreation area was once a thriving tourist attraction for Texas, but, through the years, it has become dilapidated due to the inability of the Forest Service to properly do maintenance. The county has now developed a comprehensive plan to manage that land for recreation, and this bill will restore local control to more than 2,000 acres in Fannin County, TX. This legislation will also protect property owners along the Red River--the border between Texas and Oklahoma--who have faced uncertainty following a flawed Bureau of Land Management survey under the previous administration. This legislation will assure these landowners that the Federal Government has no rightful claim and will make no claim to their property. Again, I look forward to debating this legislation in the coming days, and I hope we can pass this bill, which will allow for the responsible development and conservation of land across our country. I see no Senators seeking the floor, so I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 8 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, February 6, 2019, at 9:45 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Organizational business meeting to consider committee rules, subcommittee assignments, and committee budget resolutions.'' Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 6, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct an executive hearing. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 6, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Winning the Race to G and the Next Era of Technology Innovation in the United States''. 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, February 6, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct an organizational hearing. Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 6, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting and hearing entitled ``Organizational business meeting to consider committee rules, subcommittee assignments, and an original resolution authorizing expenditures by the committee.'' Committee on Veterans' Affairs The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 6, 2019, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Organizational business meeting to consider committee rules, subcommittee assignments, and committee budget resolutions.'' Special Committee on Aging The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 6, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Financial Security in Retirement: InnoVation and Best Practices to Promote Savings.'' Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support The Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 6, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I never cease to be amazed how the politics here inside the beltway remind me of two ships passing in the night, where we can all be looking at exactly the same thing and describe it in such remarkably different ways. I have been amazed at the Democratic leader's negative comments about the President's speech last night, and I listened to comments of my friend the Democrat whip. They found virtually nothing to like about what the President had to say last night. So I was a little bit surprised to see a CBS News poll that indicates that 70 percent of the viewers approved of what they heard in President Trump's speech last night at the State of the Union, and 72 percent said they approved of President Trump's ideas on immigration, one of the most contentious and divisive issues that faces our country. One conclusion might be that it is because our Democratic colleagues are simply unwilling to do anything to work with President Trump and are determined to do everything they can in order to defeat him or that anything that he happens to be for they are reflexively against. That seemed to be what gave us the 35-day shutdown, where Nancy Pelosi said that building a physical barrier along the southwestern border was immoral, even though Democrats and Republicans had routinely voted for fencing, extending the hundreds of miles there in the Secure Fence Act of 2006 and 2008. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, all voted for that. Now Nancy Pelosi woke up one morning and decided it was immoral to build any physical barrier at all along the southwestern border. I agree with those who say the real immorality here is to see the scourge of human trafficking, sex slavery, women and children being held against their will by the traffickers who transfer people up and across the southwestern border. What is really immoral is to stand by and do nothing and watch 70,000 Americans die of drug overdoses last year alone, with a significant amount of that due to opioid addiction, including the 90 percent of the heroin that comes into the United States from Mexico. To me, that is the immorality, not some fence or wall or pedestrian bridge or whatever the physical barrier may be. I agree with those who were polled in the CBS News poll who believe that what we heard last night from the President was a strong message in his second State of the Union address. Since President Trump took office 2 years ago, the American people have seen real results and a shot of adrenalin has been given to our economy, allowing millions of Americans to get back to work. Yes, our economy is booming. We have gotten our optimism and confidence back again. Wages are on the rise. People are getting to keep more of what they earn, and middle-class Americans are seeing their paychecks expand. We have heard the remarkable statistics that people who have disabilities are now reentering the workforce because there is such demand for workers that even people who previously weren't able to find work are now able to get that work. Yes, in addition to the low unemployment rate, we are seeing minority unemployment and African-American and Hispanic unemployment lower than it has ever been in recorded history. You would think that would be something that people would want to applaud on a bipartisan basis. But time and again, we saw our friends across the aisle last night sitting on their hands with a grim and sort of discontented look on their face. That is another reason why I think so many people believe that Washington, DC, and what happens here and the politics that take place here are completely removed and disconnected from their experience across the breadth of this country. We have done some pretty significant things in the last year together, on a bipartisan basis. We combatted the opioid crisis. We improved our criminal justice system just this last December by huge, overwhelming margins. We repealed taxes on low- and middle-class Americans, known as the ObamaCare individual mandate, punishing people simply because they could not afford the high premiums and deductibles of the so-called Affordable Care Act, and we restored much needed funding to our military in a still very dangerous world and provided an overdue pay raise for our troops. But President Trump wasn't there just to tout his accomplishments. He was there to assure the American people that we are not going to rest on our laurels. There is still work to be done, and we are eager to get moving. The President offered up some constructive ideas about what that might be: rebuilding America's infrastructure, making healthcare and prescription drugs more affordable, and, finally, eliminating the scourge of HIV over the next decade. I remember being at the dedication of the George Bush Library at SMU a few years ago, when they had all the living Presidents speaking at that dedication. President Jimmy Carter, surprisingly--to me, anyway-- applauded President George W. Bush for saving millions of lives in Africa as a result of the PEPFAR program, providing new, incredible drugs to help reduce and eliminate the scourge of HIV in Africa. The President now wants to do that in the United States, and I applaud him for it. To address these and other countless challenges before us, the President stressed the need for unity. As much as we would like to, nobody gets everything they want in Congress. In a country where democracy prevails, we know that means that we are going to have to negotiate and compromise, but there are 80-percent solutions that when we see them, we ought to grab them. Just turning on the news or social media, it is easy to think there is more that divides us than unites us as a country, but the President reminded us that citizens of goodwill share the same goal, and that is to build a stronger and better America. As the President said last night: There is a new opportunity in American politics, if only we have the courage to seize it. Victory is not winning for our party. Victory is winning for our country. I hope all of us will answer the President's call to work together to respond to the better angels of our nature and to build on the successes of the last 2 years for the benefit of all the American people. Nomination of Neomi Rao Mr. President, yesterday, we had the Judiciary Committee hold a hearing to consider an important nomination, and that is of Neomi Rao to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, what some have called the ``second highest court in the land.'' This is the seat, of course, that has been vacated by the elevation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. Ms. Rao is currently the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an obscure but important Agency--probably the most powerful Agency nobody has ever heard of here in Washington, DC. She was confirmed to that position on a bipartisan basis in 2017, and since taking the helm at OIRA, Agencies have reduced regulatory costs by more than $23 billion, which has been another spur to the American economy. Ms. Rao is currently an associate professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University and a leading scholar in the field of administrative law. Through her career, Ms. Rao has served in all three branches of the Federal Government. She clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court and Judge Harvie Wilkinson on the Fourth Circuit. She served as an Associate Counsel and Special Assistant to President George W. Bush, and she has also worked here in the Senate as a counsel for the then-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, our friend, Orrin Hatch. Suffice it to say that she has a vast understanding of the workings of the Federal Government, as well as the rulemaking process. In a court that frequently hears challenges to Federal regulations, her unique experience and knowledge of administrative law will be an incredibly valuable asset. Unsurprisingly, I am not the only one who holds that view. Two dozen former Supreme Court clerks who worked alongside Ms. Rao sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee touting her qualifications. They noted: Many of us have worked in government, at both federal and state levels, some for Democrats and some for Republicans. They went on to say: While our professional and personal paths have thus diverged, one of the things we have shared is admiration for Neomi. We are confident she will serve our country well on the D.C. Circuit. We have seen similar letters from her classmates at both Yale and the University of Chicago Law School, as well as from her former students. Adding to the list of her glowing recommendations, Ms. Rao has received a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association. My colleagues, Senator Schumer from New York and Senator Leahy from Vermont, once referred to this rating as ``the gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged.'' But despite her outstanding qualifications, Ms. Rao has faced some unconvincing attacks by opponents of this administration. I am convinced that some of our colleagues would oppose any judicial nominee by this President just because they were nominated by President Trump. On Monday, the day before her hearing, I was surprised to see a headline from POLITICO. The story was entitled: ``Dems hope to draw blood from potential Trump SCOTUS pick.'' What they were referring to, I assume, is that Ms. Rao, as qualified as she is and nominated for the court of appeals, once confirmed, she could possibly in the future be a candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court. So the goal is to rough her up now, tarnish her reputation the best you can, in preparation for that potentiality in the future. This is not entirely surprising, but it is regrettable. Before we even had a chance to hear from the nominee and discuss her qualifications for a circuit court seat, some on the other side are sharpening their claws, and the special interests are unfairly trying to undermine her nomination. This war being waged against Ms. Rao is not because she is unqualified for the job, but it is because some fear her commitment to the rule of law and speculate, as I said, that someday she might be a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. A Wall Street Journal editor last week warned that Ms. Rao might get ``Kavanaughed.'' That is a new verb. It used to be called to get ``Borked,'' after Robert Bork. But of course, they said she could get ``Kavanaughed'' because of her writings in college newspapers more than two decades ago. So the term ``Borked'' has now been supplanted by the term ``Kavanaughed'' as a description of the scorched earth tactics of the radical left. A young conservative at the time, her biweekly column for the Yale Herald was called ``Against the Current,'' and it challenged the politically correct, although poorly reasoned, views of some of her classmates at the liberal Ivy League school. I guess, when you consider what happened to Brett Kavanaugh, at least we moved on from high school yearbooks now to things that somebody has written in college. I don't know whether that represents progress or not. Ms. Rao has said repeatedly, however, that she no longer holds the same views she held more than 20 years ago. That is called growing up and maturing. In any event, she said she wouldn't substitute her personal views for the laws of Congress or the precedents of the Supreme Court. Of course, the flimsy suggestion is that these articles are enough to deny her a seat on the Federal bench. The left's attempt to block this qualified nominee by any means necessary reminds me of a comment made by Judge Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing. He noted that many members of the committee are taking our job of ``advice and consent'' to mean ``search and destroy.'' We have before us a highly qualified nominee with an almost unparalleled understanding of administrative law. She has received positive remarks from the American Bar Association, the so-called gold standard for nominees. She enjoys high praise from former colleagues and students who represent both liberal and conservative viewpoints. I hope our colleagues can look objectively at these endorsements and all she has accomplished during her career rather than follow the radical voices down some rabbit trail. I believe Ms. Rao is exceptionally qualified for a seat on the DC Circuit Court, and I thank her for answering the call to serve despite the divisive political times in which we live.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida.) Without objection, it is so ordered. State of the Union Address

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as the world knows by now, tonight President Trump will deliver his delayed State of the Union Message. This is a tradition that, of course, dates back to the Constitution, but the Constitution is ambiguous or unclear or actually doesn't say exactly how that annual message should be delivered. We know that George Washington, for example, delivered his annual message in 1790 at the Federal Hall of New York City, which was the temporary seat of the Federal Government at the time. Although John Adams delivered an in- person address, the tradition didn't last very long. Our third President, Thomas Jefferson, chose to deliver the message in writing, a practice that lasted for nearly a century--that is, until President Woodrow Wilson chose to speak to the Congress in 1913. According to the Washington Post, people were outraged at this breach of tradition, which maybe speaks to how hard change is in Washington, DC. The paper wrote ``All official Washington was agape last night over the decision of the President to go back to the long-abandoned custom.'' Coming face-to-face with Members of Congress was President Wilson's attempt to bring about a closer intimacy between the Congress and the Chief Executive, and I am glad this time the tradition has stuck. I know there are those who disagree, and perhaps that has to do with the endless wave of standing ovations that Congress gives that punctuates the modern speech, which I could do with less of. The State of the Union Message also serves another important purpose, and that is the President's ability to speak not only to the Members of Congress but over the heads of Congress and directly to the American people. This address is carried live on every network and streamed across social media platforms. We are all waiting to hear what the President has to say, particularly during these polarized and unusual times. This is a time to reflect on the great work that has been done in the last couple of years to help move our country in a positive direction. Unfortunately, given the propensity of the media to focus on conflict and not on accomplishment that is credited to bipartisan efforts, most of the American people probably aren't aware or need to be reminded of what has actually happened the last 2 years, and I hope the President will reflect on that. President Trump took office in January 2017, and Congress has passed legislation since that time to improve nearly every aspect of society. No one stands out greater than the economy. I remember that during the Barack Obama administration, particularly after the great recession of 2008, we were told that 2 percent growth was the new normal, even though for the last previous 25 years that was definitely subnormal. Annual growth rates were more often in the 3.5 to 4 percent range. Now we know that the American economy has gotten its groove back and people are optimistic and confident. They reacted in large part to the increase in take-home pay they see in their paychecks and the fact that many businesses, large and small, have chosen to reinvest in their people by raising wages, improving benefits, or providing a bonus. I hope that we hear from President Trump more about this tonight because this has been nothing less than a miracle. You can undoubtedly trace it back to the landmark tax reform bill we passed over a year ago. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act sought to solve a problem that had befuddled Congress for many years, whether they be Republicans or Democrats. The question was, How do we fix this outdated, archaic, and overly complicated Tax Code? When President Trump signed this bill into law, it marked the first major overhaul of our Tax Code in 31 years. Our reforms lowered rates all across the board, doubled the child tax credit, and incentivized U.S. businesses with earnings abroad to bring that money back home and work here in America for the American people. We quickly saw a steady stream of headlines about businesses, big and small, announcing, as I indicated earlier, bonuses, pay raises, new jobs, and other investments in their employees. In the months that followed the law's enactment, I have met with a number of employers throughout Texas to see how the new tax law has changed their way of doing business. In Corpus Christi, for example, I visited with a seafood distributorship company called Groomers Seafood. They gave their employees a bonus and increased their wages after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act became law. In Houston, at Southland Hardware, a quaint neighborhood hardware store whose tagline is ``the store that has `almost' everything,'' they were able to provide bonuses and raises for their staff, as well as hire a new employee and do improvements to their store. In Austin, I visited with the owner of Wally's Burger Express. He told me he is using the savings from tax reform to expand his business and create new jobs. It is clear to me that businesses across the country have felt the same way as these owners of small businesses did in Texas, and it didn't take long for Americans to begin to feel the benefit. I have heard from countless of my constituents about the impact this legislation has had on their daily lives, and it is all for the better. One of them was a gentleman from Arlington, TX, named David. David wrote to me to say that the company where he is employed increased the hours people were able to work. Christmas bonuses increased, too, and the company hired more people, bought new machines, and made long- overdue repairs to their building. Now with these changes in place, David says the guys down on the shop floor are taking home a little bit more money each week in their paychecks. He said: ``All of this adds up and makes a huge difference in the lives of the guys on the shop floor.'' The impact also extends to retirees across the country. One of my constituents from Midland, TX, named Glenda reached out to me about how the tax reform bill changed her life. She wrote to me to say that she has been retired since 2013, which, she reminded me, means that she has a fixed income with no possibility of pay raises or year-end bonuses, but that doesn't mean she is not grateful. She said that the reduction in income taxes to her feels like a raise. Because of this legislation, middle-class Americans are living more comfortably and the economy is booming. If you don't believe me, just look at the numbers. Since this legislation was passed, 3 million new jobs have been added in our country, wages are on the rise, and unemployment has hit a 50-year low. I read the other day that because of tight labor conditions, people with disabilities are reentering the workforce, and we have seen the lowest level of Hispanic and African-American unemployment ever. This revitalization of the economy has led to big benefits on Main Street and in the homes of average Americans. America has regained its status as an economic powerhouse once again, and we are going to keep these successes going. So looking back on the last 2 years, there are countless accomplishments I am proud of, but certainly reforming the Tax Code for the first time in 31 years stands out near the top of the list. I should also mention that we confirmed 85 Federal judges, including two incredibly qualified Supreme Court Justices. This all comes despite the unprecedented obstruction we have seen from Senate Democrats to slow down or block the process. We still have a number of judicial vacancies to fill in this Congress, many of them in Texas and many of whom were just renominated. I hope we can move quickly to vote on these nominations--these good men and women who offered to serve the public as Federal judges. Under this administration we have taken some positive bipartisan efforts, such as combatting the opioid epidemic, which plagues nearly every community in the America. We supported pay raises for our military and authorized additional resources for their equipment and training. We promoted public safety with the passage of bills to stop or deter school violence. We have given farmers and ranchers the certainty they need when we passed the critical farm bill. We supported better career training and education for American workers. And that is just the beginning. This administration, in working with the Congress, has delivered real changes for the American people. I am ready to keep those changes and improvements moving forward, so I am eager to hear what the President has to say tonight on everything we have accomplished together and for him to outline his priorities for the coming year. With the Democrats' gaining control of the House, though, I expect the President to ask about the importance of working on a bipartisan basis. Speaker Pelosi has a fundamental choice: Is she going to work with the Republicans in the Senate and the President to do good things for the American people or is she simply going to oppose anything and everything President Trump proposes--given the fact that the 35-day shutdown represents not an effort to find middle ground and negotiate a sensible outcome but rather one of political point-scoring, of trying to determine who is the winner and loser in any particular battle no matter what the collateral damage may be? I hope our colleagues in the House and, I hope, all of our colleagues in the Senate will look at trying to continue this record of accomplishment for the American people and will commit to working in good faith to keep that progress moving. Under this administration, our government has taken major steps to strengthen our economy and to make changes that benefit the American people. I am proud of what we have been able to accomplish. I am not focused on the frustrations that plague us every day; I am focused on the positives we have been able to do, and I hope we can keep it going. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to the Senator from Nebraska for her comments on the INF Treaty that President Trump has withdrawn the United States from. There wasn't much of a treaty left, really, after Russia repeatedly violated it, and China is not even bound by it. It is very important, when we are talking about these issues, that we understand the facts and the state of the world as it is. I read a recent summary by the RAND Corporation of their analysis of Russia and China. They called Russia a rogue, not a peer, and China a peer, not a rogue. There is a lot behind that, but I think it really is true that the only way we are going to deter the Russians is by maintaining our strength. The way we do that is by doing what is necessary to protect the United States and our allies. In this case, that means taking a treaty that has already been violated by the Russians and no longer bounds China and building the appropriate missiles to deter anybody from taking advantage of any perceived weakness in the United States, insofar as it comes to protecting ourselves or our allies. I would like to express my appreciation for those comments and support them. Honoring Donna Doss Madam President, it is with a heavy heart that I come to the Senate floor this morning to express my deepest condolences for the friends, family, and colleagues of U.S. Border Patrol agent Donna Doss, who was killed in the line of duty this last weekend. On Saturday, February 2, Agent Doss responded to a call for assistance from a Texas Department Public Safety trooper on Interstate Highway 20, near Abilene, TX. While on the scene, she was struck by a passing vehicle and died shortly thereafter of her injuries. During her more than 15 years of dedicated service, Agent Doss has made immeasurable contributions to public safety, both in Texas and beyond. Her career with the Border Patrol began at the Brackettville Station in the Del Rio Sector, where she worked to disrupt and dismantle several of our narcotic organizations as a Drug Enforcement Administration task force officer. Her career then led her to Washington State, where she led the Criminal Alien Prosecutions Unit for the Spokane Sector. Then, in 2011, Agent Doss made her way back to Texas to serve in the Laredo Sector, first, as supervisory Border Patrol agent and, later, as operations officer. Since March of 2017, she served as resident agent in Abilene, where she was responsible for all of the enforcement operations across eight counties. In addition to leading a distinguished career, Agent Doss was a loving wife, daughter, sister, and stepmother. Her loss is another solemn reminder of the courageous sacrifices law enforcement officers and their families make every day. We are grateful to all of those who put their lives on the line when they put on their uniform every morning, ready to face the unknown challenges that lie ahead. I am particularly grateful to the men and women in green who make up our Nation's Border Patrol, like Agent Doss. I want to thank Agent Doss' family for her selfless service and sacrifice, and I send my heartfelt condolences to Agent Doss' family, friends, Acting Sector Chief Matthew Hudak, the agents of the Border Patrol Del Rio Sector, where she honorably served, and the entire Border Patrol family during this difficult time.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns from the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted privileges of the floor through March 15, 2019: Grant Cummings and Alexandra Ongman.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on Tuesday of this week, the Senate Finance Committee had a very important hearing on the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs, something the Presiding Officer knows a lot about. In 2017, a study found that more than half of Americans regularly take some form of prescription medication. Modern medicine has made living with chronic health conditions that would have once been debilitating or fatal--like diabetes, high blood pressure, or asthma-- modern medicine has made living with those conditions manageable. That is a blessing for which we are all grateful. I know, at the same time, many of my constituents and many Americans struggle to buy prescription drugs to treat common health problems, not because they aren't widely available but because they simply are unaffordable. For many higher cost, brand-named drugs, generic alternatives are available at a lower price. For example, I happened to take a drug called Lipitor, which previously was covered by a patent. As a result of that patent, the cost of the drug was higher because the producer of the drug had a monopoly. We grant that monopoly for a period of time--I believe it is 12 years--in order for them to recoup their research and investment dollars. Unfortunately, many of these efforts to come up with lifesaving drugs are unsuccessful. So in order to encourage innovation and lifesaving discoveries, we have to find a way to allow drug companies to recover their sunk costs and make a profit. Generic drugs have really been a lifesaver for many people. That same Lipitor that I take now is off of patent and is available for a few dollars for a 30-day supply. That is just one example. One study found that 93 percent of generic prescriptions are filled at $20 or less, with the average cost being just more than a little over $6, but for many drugs, there are no low-cost alternatives, and people are increasingly struggling to cover the rising costs of their medication. One witness from Indiana, Kathy Sego, I think, speaks for a lot of parents who have children suffering from diabetes needing insulin, and I think her story was emblematic of that problem across the country. In her case, she is a wife, a mother of two, and a choir teacher. Her son Hunter is one of the more than 30 million Americans who suffer from diabetes, and he relies on insulin to manage his blood sugar. Kathy told us that when her son Hunter started college, he started to go to the pharmacy to pick up his insulin prescription himself. That is when he discovered that it cost $1,700 a month, even with health insurance. The copay--the part they were responsible for and had been paying for Hunter, unbeknownst to him--is $1,700 a month. Kathy assured him that, unfortunately, that cost was correct; $1,700 only covers a 1- month supply. Over the next few weeks, their family began to notice a change in their son Hunter. He was losing weight, falling behind in school, and was depressed--a far cry from what she said was his normally positive and energetic self. Unbeknownst to his parents, Hunter had only purchased one vial of insulin when he needed four, and he began rationing his supply of the drug. To try to counterbalance that, he began skipping meals--which is dangerous for a diabetic to do, let alone an incredibly active college football player like him. Fortunately, in time, his family realized what had happened, and they intervened, avoiding what could have been fatal consequences, but her family still battles with the expense of this insulin. Kathy says she worries about what happens when Hunter graduates from college, noting that his life choices are contingent upon his ability to pay for the medicine he needs to keep him alive. She wondered at our hearing: Can he afford an apartment, utility bills, and repay his student loans? Hunter, she said, needs insulin to live, but should that need for insulin keep him from living? About 1.5 million Americans have type 1 diabetes like Hunter, where their body produces no insulin to deal with the blood sugar, but as I mentioned earlier, 30 million Americans, according to the Centers for Disease Control, have diabetes, and about 3 million of those 30 million are in my State of Texas. Three million Texans have diabetes for which insulin is a required treatment. While we know it is common to see higher drug prices for new drugs that have recently completed the costly research-and-development phase, that is not the case for insulin, which has been around for nearly a century and is a type of biologic drug which is generally more expensive to produce. I hope Kathy and Hunter's story--which could be told millions of times by other families across the country--impels us to investigate the causes for these unreasonable costs for some of these prescription drugs. I hope we find a solution--and I am confident we will if we try hard enough--that will allow families like Kathy's to live without the burden of wondering how to pay for their healthcare costs, particularly when it comes to prescription drugs. At Tuesday's hearing, I also questioned our witnesses about a phenomenon known as rebates and the way pharmacy benefit managers deal with pharmaceutical companies. I noted that, ordinarily, it was a crime to kick back money to a provider. For some reason that nobody could justify, there was an exclusion for these rebates by pharmacy benefit managers to pharmaceutical companies. In the case of prescription drug pricing, rebates and discounts provided by manufacturers could mean the difference between a drug being covered by your insurance plan or not, and, certainly, whatever the net price is after the rebate is not transparent to anybody, much less to the consumer, or returned directly to the consumer. Not only does this drive up the list price and out-of-pocket cost of lifesaving drugs, but it makes it impossible for Congress or anybody to determine where each dollar goes. I find this lack of transparency alarming. It shouldn't take an advanced degree to figure out where your money is going when you buy prescription drugs or how to shop for the most effective drug at the right price. When it comes to prescription drugs, we need to promote transparency first and foremost, and we need to streamline and eliminate regulations and laws that allow the middlemen to unnecessarily drive up prices. We know we have the opportunity to do that in the coming months. We shouldn't require people suffering from chronic diseases to subsidize the healthcare costs of healthy people. There is something strangely wrong about this picture. I am glad we had the opportunity to listen to witnesses on this topic, and I thank them for taking the time to share their insights. I look forward to continuing to work with all of our colleagues on the Finance Committee and generally to identify ways to make prescription drugs more affordable and accessible to the American people. As the Presiding Officer knows, given his background in healthcare, I am confident he can be an important part of that solution, as well. Tribute to Susan Pamerleau Mr. President, switching gears just a bit, I want to share a quick good-news story of two outstanding Texans who blazed the trail for women in public service. While I was in San Antonio, my hometown, a couple of weeks ago, I had the chance to congratulate our new U.S. marshal for the Western District of Texas, Susan Pamerleau. Over the years, she has held many impressive titles--general in the Air Force and sheriff--and now she is a U.S. Marshal. In addition to each of those, I have always been proud to know her under a different title--as a friend. At Susan's ceremonial swearing-in, Chief Judge Orlando Garcia opened by noting the historical significance of her being the first female marshal ever in the Western District of Texas, which was established in 1857. Susan's long and impressive career began at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, where my dad happened to have been stationed at one time, where she received her commission through officer training school. Over the course of her 32-year career in the Air Force, she rose through the ranks and retired, ultimately, as an Air Force major general in the year 2000. When she returned to Texas, Susan joined USAA as a vice president and later became senior vice president. It wasn't until 10 years later that her career in law enforcement began when she was elected sheriff of Bexar County, TX, which is the 11th largest sheriff's office in the Nation. Susan was the first woman to hold that role as well, but she said: It was not about being the first woman. It was really about redefining the role of what the Bexar County sheriff does. Over the years, I have had the opportunity to work with her on a number of issues impacting my constituents and our constituents, including mental health and law enforcement reforms. I think she has made an enormous contribution to both of those areas. Needless to say, I was thrilled when the President nominated Susan to be the new U.S. marshal for the Western District of Texas and when she was confirmed last fall. Her integrity, leadership, and management skills are critical to the Western District of Texas, which comprises 68 counties and more than 6 million people. I wish, once again, to congratulate my dear friend Susan Pamerleau on becoming the U.S. marshal, and I look forward to continuing to work with her as we serve together the people of Texas Remembering Mary Lou Robinson Mr. President, finally, when you talk about women opening doors in Texas, you can't leave out Mary Lou Robinson, who sadly passed away last weekend at the age of 92. Her long and distinguished legal career began at the University of Texas School of Law, where she met her husband, A.J. After law school, they returned to Amarillo, TX, where they opened up the firm appropriately named Robinson & Robinson. In 1955, she left the private practice of law when Potter County commissioners appointed her judge of the Potter County Court at Law, making her the first in a series of firsts for this remarkable woman. Judge Robinson found her passion, and she was hooked. In the coming decades, she became an advocate for women's rights, and she helped to promote the passage of the Texas Equal Rights Amendment, a constitutional amendment voted on by the people in 1972. Over the course of her remarkable 63-year judicial career, Judge Robinson served as the 108th District Court judge, followed by associate and then chief justice of the 7th Court of Appeals, located in Amarillo. In 1979, she was appointed by President Jimmy Carter to be a judge of the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Texas, where she served for nearly 40 years. Her career is impressive, not only for its length but for its quality. One attorney practicing before Judge Robinson noted: ``Lawyers may disagree on a lot of things, but almost all agree that she treats everyone equally and fairly.'' That is high praise for a district judge. Judge Robinson will be remembered as an inspiring and devoted judge, an early advocate for women's rights, and a beloved member of her community. Last summer, Senator Cruz and I introduced a bill to rename the Federal building and courthouse in Amarillo the J. Marvin Jones Federal Building and the Mary Lou Robinson United States Courthouse. This lasting testament to her judicial career will live on for generations, and I am proud that Senator Cruz and I were able to cement this legacy for this legal pioneer. While our family sends our prayers to the family of Mary Lou Robinson, we can all be proud of her distinguished career of service, not only to her beloved community in Amarillo but to the State of Texas and to the Nation as a whole. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that the majority leader has put before the Senate an important piece of legislation that reemphasizes our support for our allies in the Middle East, a very dangerous neighborhood that has a tendency to have others drawn into the neighborhood and into the fight. This legislation is comprised of four bills that have enjoyed bipartisan support, but we weren't able to get them done before the deadline at the end of the 115th Congress. Each of these four bills speaks directly to our national security interests in the Middle East and the support for our allies, particularly allies like Jordan and Israel. Every day, the State of Israel faces attacks from adversaries in the region, ranging from rocket and missile attacks to various explosives and foot soldiers-- namely, Hezbollah, the Iranian-financed and trained effort to try to exterminate the Jewish State. Israel is also enduring a different type of warfare, this time an economic war known as Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions or the BDS movement. This campaign began in 2005 with more than 170 Palestinian nongovernmental organizations lobbying foreign governments, corporations, and academic institutions to sever all their ties with Israel. In the years since, this movement has expanded with participants seeking to isolate Israel both economically and politically. For some, their participation in the movement is simply a means of voicing their opposition to Israeli policies in the Middle East-- something that at least in the United States, they have every right to do under the First Amendment. For others, though, it is part of a strategy to isolate Israel politically and economically, either to delegitimize the State or to force it to redraw its map. State-sponsored BDS is incredibly harmful. We have seen support for BDS in capitals across Europe and, sadly, even in the United Nations, where the movement has been supported by countries with questionable humanitarian records, such as China, Russia, and Venezuela. A few years ago, the U.N. Human Rights Council called for the creation of a so- called blacklist, naming companies that do business with Israel. Then, in a report in January, the U.N. Human Rights Council laid the groundwork for utilizing those databases to boycott those businesses, including at least 22 American companies. It is shameful, really, that the U.N. has chosen to fuel this movement by encouraging countries to boycott these businesses for what they claim are illegal activities, even though that argument has absolutely no bearing on either the United States or Israel. This effort to choke off Israel's economy by ending business ties with other countries could have serious impacts. We want to make sure State and local governments have the flexibility to avoid business with entities that support the BDS movement if they wish. One of the bills included in the legislation we are considering is called the Combating BDS Act, led by our colleagues Senator Rubio and Senator Manchin. Before I talk about what the bill does, I want to talk about what it does not do. Nothing in this bill restricts constitutionally protected speech. The law only impacts commerce-related or investment-related activities in the course of interstate or international commerce. The law does not punish companies for expressing their opposition to Israel or its policies or engaging in anti-Israel boycotts, for example. What this legislation does do, however, is clarify that State and local governments have every right to counter boycotts of Israel without fear that they are somehow violating Federal law. It assures those local governments and State governments that if they decide not to issue contracts or otherwise do business with entities that are boycotting or divesting from Israel, they have every legal right to do so. This is not a new concept, as 34 States have already enacted legislation to combat BDS. In 2017, Texas became the 18th State to pass legislation preventing tax dollars being used to support the boycott of Israel. When Governor Abbott signed that bill into law, he said, at the time, ``Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies, and we will not tolerate such actions against an important ally.'' I agree with his sentiment, certainly, and I believe it is time to provide all 50 States with the flexibility to make this decision to forgo any business that would harm the Jewish State. It goes without saying, but perhaps we should reiterate that Israel is an important and valuable friend and ally to the United States. It is one of the main stabilizing influences in the Middle East, an admittedly dangerous neighborhood, with aggressors on all sides wanting to literally wipe the State of Israel off the map. Of course, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Ensuring its viability is critical to protecting U.S. interests abroad and here at home, and it is important that we support our closest ally in the region. Passing this legislation is a step to support Israel in their efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East. It takes a strong stance against the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic BDS movement and confirms our longstanding support of Israel. So I look forward to voting yes on this important legislation when the time comes, hopefully, very soon. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I would like to start by saying a few words about the horrific shooting that occurred in Houston, TX, at about 5 o'clock yesterday. A team of narcotics patrol officers from the Houston Police Department were serving a warrant. As soon as they breached the door at the home in southeast Houston, the suspects opened fire. Four officers were hit; one critically, and one other was injured as a result of an unrelated mishap. Three of these officers were in good condition, and two remained in critical but stable condition in the hospital. For the case agent, the most senior officer on the narcotics squad, this was the third time he had been shot in the line of duty--once in 1992 and again in 1997. He told Chief Art Acevedo: ``I had to get in there because I knew my guys were down.'' I echo the Houston Police Union President Joe Gamaldi, who said last night that enough is enough. This type of attack against law enforcement is unconscionable and unacceptable. These are dedicated public servants who have taken an oath to serve and protect our communities and who potentially sacrifice their very lives every day to keep our families safe. Today, with a heavy heart, I want to thank the Houston Police Department and law enforcement officers across the country who put on the uniform each morning, never knowing what the day might bring. We are incredibly grateful for their service and the tremendous sacrifices they make. I also want to acknowledge the work of the Houston Fire and EMS Department who moved Heaven and Earth to ensure these heroic, wounded officers got the medical care they needed as soon as possible. I thank my friends Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and Chief Acevedo for their leadership during this very difficult time for the city of Houston and our entire State. My wife Sandy and I are praying for the officers, their families, and their brothers and sisters in blue.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 9 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 Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 29, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on China and Russia. Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 29, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Nicole R. Nason, of New York, to be Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 29, 2019, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Drug Pricing in America: A Prescription for Change, Part I''. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 29, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Access to Care: Health Centers and Providers in Underserved Communities''. Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 29, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct an organizational and business meeting. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 29, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a business meeting. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 29, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Open Hearing on Worldwide Threats''. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 29, 2019, at 1 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing. Subcommittee on Cybersecurity The Subcommittee on Cybersecurity of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 29, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining Department of Defense enterprise-wide cybersecurity policies and architecture.''

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, after a 35-day government shutdown, more than 800,000 Federal workers and their families are finally back at work. Their families have endured unnecessary and needless hardship over the past several weeks because, frankly, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, was more determined to try to win the political battle than solve the problem. I could give the same comment to our friend the Democratic leader here in the Senate. I hope now, after we have been through this exercise in futility, that our colleagues will take seriously our responsibility to solve the problem before us, and that is to reach an agreement so we don't end up in the same position 3 weeks hence when this continuing resolution expires. I tell people that we solve problems like this every single day here in the Congress. You don't read about it, necessarily, or hear about it because when we build consensus and negotiate compromises, it is not news. The only time it is news is when we disagree and when it is broadcast across cable TV or the subject of talk radio or social media. It is unfortunate that dedicated public servants were caught in the crosshairs over a partisan fight on border security. What we have seen over the last months is that many Members desire to score those political points and win a fight against the President, and that desire is much greater than their desire to build legislation that benefits the American people. There is a solution to be had. As I said, we do it every day. The only question is, Are we willing to work together to find it? I know I am. I have been speaking with many Members of the Texas delegation, both Republicans and Democrats, to try to find that common ground for our constituents for border security. We don't consider these to be political footballs or talking points; we consider these matters to be part of their daily lives and part of our responsibility as their elected representatives. In the last few days, I have had the chance to be in Dallas, TX, and also in Austin, TX. I was in Austin, TX, to talk about the CyberTipline we reauthorized working with Facebook and Microsoft and other social media platforms to talk about how we can work together to combat child pornography and child exploitation, using the authority of the CyberTipline. We were joined by the new U.S. attorney there, John Bash. I asked him whether his prosecutors who were prosecuting these cases or the FBI agents who would investigate them or his support staff who support the U.S. attorney's office--whether any of them were getting paid, and he said no. But everybody showed up at work, doing their job, fighting the scourge of child exploitation, even though they weren't getting paid. Ditto in the Northern District of Texas, where I visited with the U.S. attorney, who gave me the same story. We were there talking about the scourge of human trafficking. Erin Nealy Cox, the U.S. attorney in Dallas, pointed out that, yes, the prosecutors were there at work, the investigators were there, and the support staff were there, even though they were the ones probably earning the most modest paychecks of anybody in the office. Everybody was there, doing their job, even though during these 35 days they had missed two different Federal paychecks. Thinking now about the solution to our standoff on border security, I wanted to mention that a couple of weeks ago the President flew to McAllen, TX. Senator Cruz and I joined him in the Rio Grande Valley to hear from the experts. By ``the experts,'' I don't mean folks who run for office here in Washington, DC. I mean the Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, and Department of Homeland Security experts who actually work on the ground there along the border. We also met with mayors and county judges and other folks who live in those communities and are most concerned about safety and security but also the economy of the border region. We discussed with them what sensible border security actually looks like. We know that physical barriers didn't use to be a partisan issue when the Senator from New York--the Democratic leader--Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton all voted for the Secure Fence Act back in 2006. We called it a fence then and not a wall, but it was a physical barrier, and it was a nonpartisan issue. That was then and this is now. When we were talking about physical barriers along the border, my friend Cameron County Judge Eddie Trevino said something that stuck with me, and I have repeated it a number of times, and I think it could be a lesson to all of us about how to approach this entire debate. He said that if law enforcement officials say where barriers are needed, he is all in, but if politicians say where they are needed and they are trying to micromanage border security, consider him a skeptic. I think what people want--and my sense is what my constituents along the border region and across the State of Texas want and, I dare say, across the country--is to come up with effective solutions that will make our border more secure. Since Texas has 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico, of course, I have thought about this a lot, and I have listened and learned a lot about this. What I have been told and I believe is that at any given place along the border, you are going to have some combination of three elements: physical barriers, technology, and personnel. We need a complement of each of those things in this border security bill that hopefully we will be voting on in the coming weeks. Many areas along the border are subject to high pedestrian traffic. They need physical barriers. That is why they make sense in El Paso and San Diego and Tucson, for examples. All of these saw a massive drop in apprehensions after fencing or physical barriers were put in place, along with a complement of technology and border agents when they were deployed in the 1990s and 2000s. We know that barriers can work. We have seen it proven time and again. We all agree that we don't need barriers across the entire 2,000-mile southwestern border. We don't need a great wall from sea to shining sea across the border. One example comes readily to mind. Big Bend National Park, for example, is home to massive canyons, and some of the cliffs reach more than 3,000 feet high along the Rio Grande River. It is a spectacular and beautiful place. It would not only be impractical but completely wasteful to build a physical barrier on top of a towering cliff. That is just one example of where you might want to use some other parts of that triad of technology and personnel because a physical barrier wouldn't make much sense. There are others who have suggested that we use the natural barrier of the Rio Grande River. Right now, much of that river is filled with something called carrizo cane, which makes it harder for the Border Patrol to actually locate people trying to enter the United States illegally. It reduces the effectiveness of that natural physical barrier of the Rio Grande River. We need to find a way to eradicate that in a way that will not only allow that river to be more of a natural barrier but also provide greater visibility for the Border Patrol. In some areas, as I said, physical barriers, either new, repaired, or replaced are desperately needed. In others, surveillance technology, such as sensors or drones, will do the trick. Many additional personnel are needed to improve efficiency or alleviate staffing shortages. It doesn't make sense to have a physical barrier if there is no Border Patrol agent to detain somebody entering the country illegally or to interdict the drugs that come across the border. As my friend Judge Trevino said, politicians shouldn't be the ones deciding exactly where along the border each of these three elements is applied. That is why we have asked and will continue to ask Customs and Border Protection--the experts--what we need and provide funding to implement the changes they have asked for. I think it is a statement of the obvious to say that, in addition to improving the physical security across our border, we need to make changes in our border security approach and immigration system as a whole. Unfortunately, we are not even dealing with the larger problem of our broken immigration system. Several years ago, I introduced legislation to the so-called Gang of 8 immigration bill that we were debating at the time. The legislation I introduced was called the RESULTS amendment. I believe the foundation of that legislation should be incorporated in any future legislation we come up with here in the next few weeks. One of the main requirements was for the Department of Homeland Security to come up with a plan to achieve operational control of every single border sector, meaning a 90-percent border apprehension rate. Requiring this sort of metric or apprehension rate will provide a clear, objective way to measure border security. Ironically, the way we measure border security now is that we know how many people are detained, but we don't know how many get away. It is a strange way to count effectiveness by counting the ones we detain but not the ones who get away--which obviously we can't do. If we come up with a better way to measure border security with a clear- cut metric like a 90-percent operational control requirement, I think it would provide a better way for us to determine how to efficiently spend the tax dollars we are talking about, which we are stewards of here in the Congress, and ensure that we are focusing our resources on the highest priority areas. This requirement would allow us to do that. That particular legislation, the RESULTS amendment, would also require increased surveillance and provide solutions to commonsense problems. For example, it would have prevented violent criminals from acquiring legal status, provided law enforcement with critical national security and public safety information, and mitigated the problem of visa overstays. This RESULTS amendment would have strengthened biometric requirements. It is ironic, as we talk about border security and immigration, that we turn a blind eye to the 40 percent of illegal immigration that occurs when people enter the country legally and overstay their visas. Unless they commit some other crime in the course of their time here, they are largely not located. So we need to find a better way to enforce all of our immigration laws, including visa overstays. We can't ignore the fact that our border is not only a place that needs security but that is important to the economic vitality of not only my State but of our country. The financial impact of legitimate trade and travel is enormous. As a matter of fact, $300 billion worth of goods flow back and forth through Texas's ports of entry alone in a given year. That is why this type of legislation is so important--because it provides resources to significantly reduce wait times at border crossings, which makes the movement of people and goods faster but no less secure. Finally, this legislation took a stand against the brutal human rights violations we see along the southern border by stiffening penalties on abusive human smugglers and transnational criminal organizations. There may have been a time when the so-called coyotes were a mom-and-pop operation. ``Coyotes'' is just the name for human smugglers. Now it is big business, and the same criminal organizations that move drugs and economic migrants also traffic in human beings for sex and other involuntary servitude. It is no longer a mom-and-pop operation, to be sure, and we need to make sure the penalties for this illegal activity are increased and stiffened to meet the challenge of transnational criminal organizations. I believe that all of these points still deserve a place in our debate today. I look forward to working with our colleagues in the coming weeks to create meaningful and lasting change to strengthen our border security as well as to fix longstanding problems with our immigration system. I believe we can find common ground, and I hope our Democratic colleagues will follow through in their commitment to negotiating in good faith so that we do. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Johnson, be recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. I promise my friend from Maryland that I will be less than an hour. I am kidding. I am kidding. I will try to wrap it up in 10 or 15 minutes, max.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, responding to our friend from Maryland, I understand the situation. We will try to figure out how to accommodate all Senators so that they get a chance to speak.