John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since the shutdown began, we have heard voices on both sides of the aisle, mine included, calling for a bipartisan solution to fund the government and end this stalemate. With Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer refusing to come to the negotiating table, they made finding common ground much harder than it needs to be. This weekend, President Trump made a serious proposal that would deliver on priorities that are important to both parties--Republicans and Democrats--in bringing this partial government shutdown to an end. The bill we voted on today contains key provisions to border security and to make improvements to our immigration system as a whole. As we have heard from the Border Patrol experts time and again, we need sensible solutions, which, along the border, consist of three components: its physical barriers in some locations, its technology in others, and personnel in others--or some combination of those three. President Trump himself has said he understands there doesn't need to be a wall from sea to shining sea, and he has acknowledged the role of technology and personnel and border security. We need to prevent the illegal movement of goods and people without inhibiting legitimate trade and travel. I wish to show colleagues one example of a physical barrier in Texas that was voted on in a bond election in Hidalgo County, TX. These are folks who live on the border. They voted to pay for this levee wall. The reason? Because they knew the levee system had to be improved in order to get insurance companies to write insurance so that they could build and develop the property in Hidalgo County, TX. They also talked to the Border Patrol about what the Border Patrol needed to control the movement of illegal immigration across the border, and they came up with a win-win proposition--a levee wall, which is appropriate at this particular location. This was voted on as a bond election by the voters in Hidalgo County, TX, and did not involve spending any Federal money. My simple point is, there are solutions that can be worked out if we consult the experts--the Border Patrol--to find out what exactly they need for border security that will meet with public approval along the border and represent a win-win. Recently, when the President was in McAllen, TX, Senator Cruz--my colleague from Texas--and I had a meeting with mayors and county judges after the President's entourage left to come back to Washington, DC. I remember specifically my friend, Judge Eddie Trevino, the county judge of Cameron County, TX--that is where Brownsville, TX, is--who said: If it is the Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection telling us what we need in order to secure the border, we are all in. But if it is people in Washington, DC, making political judgments, politicians trying to micromanage how the border can be secured, we remain deeply skeptical. I think those wise words ought to guide us in our discussions going forward. Not only did the legislation that embodied the President's proposal invest in critical components along the border, it included more than $1 billion for improvements and personnel at our ports of entry. If you talk to anybody who knows anything about the movement of illegal drugs--heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl--across the border, most of it comes through the port of entry, embedded in trucks and trailers and personal vehicles. We need more technology in order to scan those vehicles in secondary review. In order to detect them, deter them, interdict them, we need the personnel to be able to do that without impeding legitimate trade and travel. These are priorities I have long advocated for, based on feedback from the experts--the law enforcement officers, community leaders, and folks who live and work along the Texas-Mexico border every day. As we all know, the challenges that exist within our immigration system don't end at our borders. With a court backlog of roughly 800,000 cases deep, nearly 1 million people living in the United States with temporary legal status, and the loopholes that make enforcing some of our immigration laws nearly impossible, there is much more that needs to be done. That is why this legislation includes provisions to build the foundation of real immigration reform--something heralded by both parties. This bill generously granted provisional status to current DACA and temporary protected status recipients, who live each day not knowing if or when they would be forced to leave the United States. It does not offer a path to citizenship or a long-term solution. I wish we could do that, but we don't have a long-term solution. It does provide stability for 3 years while Congress works on a legislative fix. This is far from a solution to the pervasive problems in our immigration system, but it is a start. A journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. This represents a first step. Most importantly, though, this legislation funds the Departments and Agencies that have been shuttered since December 22. This shutdown may have begun as a battle for border security, but it affects men and women in all 50 States whose jobs have nothing to do with border security at all, people at the Department of Agriculture, the Justice Department, the Interior Department, Housing and Urban Development, Treasury, the National Space and Aeronautics Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Peace Corps. All of the people working for each of these government Agencies are working without pay or have been furloughed. Not only is the partial shutdown impacting the critical work being done by these Departments and Agencies, it is harming the dedicated men and women who work at them, those tasked with executing and enforcing laws written by this very body. Since this shutdown began 34 days ago, nearly 800,000 Federal workers have lost the security of knowing when their next paycheck will come. Tomorrow is the second paycheck they will miss, meaning they have now gone more than a month without income. Yesterday, when I was in Austin and then in Dallas, I was told that people who routinely volunteer their time at the food banks in those locations now find themselves going to the food banks and seeking food so they can feed their families because they are missing a government paycheck and can't provide for them without the generosity of those food banks. I also went to events in Austin and Dallas and met with U.S. attorneys in both locations to talk about our efforts to counter human trafficking and child exploitation. What I learned is that the frontline prosecutors who prosecute these kinds of cases aren't being paid, but maybe more troublesome is the fact that neither are the FBI agents who conduct the investigations or the administrative personnel who support the U.S. attorneys offices. So this is harming our ability to investigate and prosecute human trafficking and child exploitation cases too. People are being forced to work without pay, and it is harming not only them but also the victims of these horrific crimes. More than 110,000 of these unpaid Federal workers earn less than $50,000 a year, and they rely on their paycheck to make ends meet. They are not millionaires. While we did pass legislation to guarantee that these public servants will eventually get their pay, that does nothing to help them in the interim. Federal workers are being forced to make decisions that no family should have to consider. For a single mom who is a Federal correctional officer in Arizona, that means turning off her heat, never letting the temperature get higher than 60 or 65 degrees in order to cut costs. For a mom in Wisconsin who works at the Department of the Interior, that means rationing her insulin because she can't afford the $300 copay. This shutdown is deeply impacting thousands of Federal workers and their families all across the country, including Texas. One Texan who works at the Internal Revenue Service says he has been sleeping in so he only has to worry about eating two meals a day, not three. One woman whose husband is in the Coast Guard drove from Galveston to Ellington Field in Houston--about 40 miles each way--to pick up free diapers for their kids. On a recent trip home, I heard specific examples of the impact this shutdown has had on the Department of Justice, which I mentioned just a moment ago, and the heartbreaking challenges they are facing every day. These dedicated men and women have chosen their careers in public service. They want to go to work. They want to be able to pay their bills. It is time for us to do our job so they can do theirs with the dignity and the pay they earn. I want to remind all our colleagues that our constituents did not send us to Washington so we could simply vote no on a less than perfect piece of legislation. If that were the case, we would never get anything done here. We were elected to work with our colleagues to create legislation so we can get to yes, to build consensus, and to solve problems, not to score political points. Are there certain pieces of legislation that I don't agree with? Of course--parts of this legislation we just voted on. But it does fund priorities critical to our southern border and to the people of Texas. Right now, this is the only bill I have seen that includes priorities of both parties and that carries the President's support. I voted for this legislation to support the men and women who have been treated as collateral damage throughout this unnecessary government shutdown, those who are forced to apply for food stamps or unemployment who would rather be working, who can't pay their medical bills or for childcare, who not only want this shutdown to end but need for this shutdown to end. We aren't here to hold show votes on legislation the President won't sign. Just ask the elementary school civics students, and they can tell you that is not how a bill becomes a law. This was a serious offer by the President to end this shutdown and build the trust and good will necessary to have real reform, and I am disappointed that our colleagues voted against this bill. That was a vote not on the merits of the President's proposal; that was a vote to get on the bill so it could be amended. In other words, our colleagues who voted against the bill aren't even interested in having a conversation about how we solve this problem and how we find our way out of this boxed canyon. Unfortunately, there are those who, for political reasons, continue to lack any interest in negotiating a compromise bill that could earn bipartisan support. We solve difficult problems every day in the U.S. Congress on a bipartisan basis--every single day--but somehow we have decided we can't solve this problem. And I fear that is not because of the difficulty of the problem presented; it is because of the politics that have paralyzed us and made it impossible for us to bridge our differences. I thank the President for this comprehensive offer and the majority leader for bringing it to the floor so we could vote on it. I would urge all of our colleagues, now that we have had these two failed votes--we know we are right where we started when we got here today--to work together to try to bridge our differences, to build consensus, and end this shutdown. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee began to hear witnesses on the nomination of Bill Barr to be the next Attorney General of the United States. We heard first, of course, from Mr. Barr himself all day yesterday and today from additional witnesses. By any standard, Mr. Barr is an exceptionally qualified individual, in part because 27 years ago, he was Attorney General, nominated and confirmed unanimously--nominated by President George Herbert Walker Bush. Under his leadership at the time, the Department of Justice focused on some of the most important law enforcement challenges facing our country at that time. They worked to fight violent crime and combat the drug epidemic, both of which continue to do great harm to communities across the country still today. As significant as the work done under his leadership was, I was more impressed with the fact that after 27 years, he was willing to take on the task of becoming Attorney General once again. He said he was sort of semiretired. He and his wife were looking forward to spending more time with their children and grandchildren. But he answered the call to public service, and I am grateful that he did. He knows that our Nation needs a strong law-and-order Attorney General at the Department of Justice. When he spoke at his confirmation hearing more than 2\1/2\ decades ago, he said: The Attorney General must ensure that the administration of justice--the enforcement of the law--is above and away from politics. Nothing could be more destructive of our system of government, the rule of law, or the Department of Justice as an institution, than any toleration of political interference with the enforcement of the law. He repeated that commitment yesterday, and I think the need for that sort of strong statement is more important today than ever. I believe Attorney General Barr will be a good Attorney General, assuming what is one of the most challenging positions in the Cabinet because you are a political appointee but you are also the chief law enforcement officer in the country. That sometimes can be difficult to navigate. As the nominee noted, doing the job and doing it well sometimes requires being prepared to burn your political capital in order to preserve the rule of law. I believe this is the most fundamental quality of a good Attorney General, and having a leader at the helm of the Department of Justice with the right temperament and a fundamental understanding of this responsibility is critical now and forever. In recent years, we witnessed some Attorneys General carrying out actions that repeatedly toed that political line, sometimes crossed it. Under the Obama administration, the Department of Justice began to veer increasingly away from the impartial administration of law and toward politics. That shift undoubtedly occurred at the hands of President Obama's Attorneys General who were in the driver's seat during his administration, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch. Both Holder's and Lynch's conduct has come under a great deal of scrutiny--even now, after they have left--and for good reason. For example, under then-Attorney General Holder, there was something called Operation Fast and Furious in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the Department of Justice purposefully allowed the illegal sale of firearms in Mexico in the hopes of being able to track them. Unfortunately, there were a number of casualties, including Border Patrolman Brian Terry, who was killed with one of those firearms in 2010. Attorney General Holder never accepted responsibility for Brian Terry's death or ever admitted that allowing these guns to walk into Mexico, into the hands of some criminal organizations, was a terrible mistake. Under his watch, the IRS targeting controversy occurred in which politically aligned groups applying for tax-exempt status faced official oppression based upon their political affiliation. Then, of course, more recently, let's not forget then-Attorney General Lynch's handling of the Clinton email scandal--something even James Comey, the FBI Director, objected to--along with her famous so- called tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton when his wife was under an active FBI investigation. The conduct of both Holder and Lynch undermined the public's confidence in the impartial administration of justice and law at the Justice Department. Under the leadership of my friend and our former colleague, Jeff Sessions, the Department of Justice has begun to right the ship and again separate politics from the impartial administration of the law, and I am confident that Mr. Barr will continue to do the same. During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Barr reaffirmed that politicians should not interfere with criminal investigations, and he likewise committed not to interfere with the special counsel's investigation. He assured us that his allegiance will be to the rule of law, to the Constitution, and to the American people, and that, above all else, he will work to protect the professionalism and integrity of the Department of Justice and the thousands of dedicated public servants who work there. Not only is Mr. Barr exceptionally qualified for the job, he is prepared on day one to step in and lead with distinction. The Senate unanimously confirmed his nomination to three different positions at the Department of Justice, and I hope we can work expeditiously to get this fine man to the Department of Justice once again. I thank Mr. Barr and his entire family for agreeing to bring his talents and his temperament to the Department of Justice at a time when those qualities are so desperately needed, and I look forward to voting yes on his nomination. Remembering Herb Kelleher Mr. President, on another matter, I want to share a few words about the passing of one of the airline industry's most unconventional and most successful executives. That would be Herb Kelleher, who cofounded Southwest Airlines. Herb was born in 1931 in New Jersey, and his young life and early career kept him on the east coast. He graduated from Wesleyan University and New York University School of Law and served as a law clerk for 2 years at the New Jersey Supreme Court and then joined a law firm in Newark. But as fate intervened in this promising young lawyer's career, he met his wife Joan, a native Texan, and they decided to move to the Lone Star State, something he later referred to as the greatest business decision he ever made. Building America's largest domestic airline carrier was never on Herb's to-do list. In the late 1960s, he was an attorney in San Antonio, when one day his client approached him with an idea about a low-fare airline serving three Texas cities. Tired of spending so much time in the car traveling between San Antonio and Houston and Dallas, he believed they could make point-to-point intrastate travel faster and much cheaper by flying, and also cheaper than other airlines. Getting their innovative idea off the ground wasn't easy. These men who founded Southwest Airlines slogged through years of legal battles before the airline operated its first flight. Their vision not only led to the creation of a budget airline but also drove down the cost of their competitors, as competition will do. To maintain their edge, Southwest tried some interesting ideas along the way. After another airline ran an ad calling Southwest a cheap carrier, Herb responded by filming a commercial where he wore a brown paper bag over his head and promised that the airline would gladly provide one to any customer too embarrassed to be seen flying on Southwest Airline. At one point, to compete with the low fares of other airlines, Southwest started a program to keep customers, and they said: You can either pay the lowest fare or pay full fare and get a full premium bottle of liquor in the process. Well, apparently it worked, and for a short time, I am told, Southwest was the largest liquor distributor in the State of Texas. I think one of the most distinctly Herb Kelleher stories is of a battle called ``The Malice in Dallas.'' In 1992, Southwest Airlines and another company realized their slogans--``Plane Smart'' and ``Just Plane Smart''--were similar. Rather than settling the matter in court, they settled it by holding a public arm wrestling match. The 61-year-old, with the cigarette fixed between his teeth, gave his much younger competitor a run for his money, but he couldn't pull off a win. At the end of the match, the two men made donations to each other's chosen charities. They agreed to share the slogan and called it a day. Each of these stories has Herb Kelleher written all over it. He was known for his gregarious personality, his incredible work ethic, and his penchant for the nontraditional, not to mention his affinity for Wild Turkey. I first met Herb when I represented him in a lawsuit early in my legal career in San Antonio. He had a larger-than-life personality, and it was a pleasure to know him. We can all learn a lesson from Herb about the importance of working hard, treating people with respect, and not being afraid to have a little bit of fun along the way. His entrepreneurial spirit was credited with democratizing the skies by disrupting the airline industry, and I believe he was one of the most consequential leaders in American aviation, and we have all benefited from that. So I join Herb's wife Joan, his children, his grandchildren, his many friends, and, of course, his beloved Southwest Airlines family in mourning the loss of this larger-than-life figure. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I would say to my friend from Virginia, we both serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and of course we have both been intimately involved in the investigation on Russia's activities up to and including the 2016 election. I would like to point out the hypocrisy of our colleagues across the aisle who refused to take up any legislation whatsoever, such as S. 1, which is on the floor and which would take extraordinarily positive measures to protect our most important allies in the Middle East, including Israel and Jordan. They filibustered that bill and said: We are not going to take up any legislation until the government is back open--100 percent of it. For the past 2 weeks, the minority leader has paralyzed the work of the Senate, saying they would block the Senate from considering any legislation unrelated to government funding. A number of our colleagues have said--for example, the junior Senator from Virginia said: ``The Senate should vote on nothing else until we vote to reopen the government. Period.'' Senator Merkley said: ``The Senate's schedule cannot be business as usual if we shut down a quarter of the government and just leave it shut down.'' Senator Booker said that Senate Democrats should block consideration of all unrelated bills. All this comes as a result of the fact that the impetus is on the Democrats to come forward and negotiate a resolution of the shutdown in good faith. But to this point, the Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, and the minority leader, Senator Schumer, have simply refused to negotiate with the President. I was with the President down in Texas, down along the border, on Thursday. He is willing to negotiate. We know we had broad bipartisan support for the Secure Fence Act, for example, in 2006, authorizing up to 800 miles of fencing on the southern border. The Democratic leader voted for that, and so did Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Later, in 2014, all Democrats voted for $40 billion in border security, including barriers, fencing, and tactical infrastructure along the border. Now they are saying, as the Speaker has said, that somehow this is ``immoral.'' Well, this is hypocrisy at its worst. Nomination of William Barr Madam President, on another matter, today the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on the nomination of William Barr to be Attorney General of the United States. Mr. Barr is uniquely qualified for this position in large part because he held the job before. As a matter of fact, 27 years ago, he was nominated by George Herbert Walker Bush to be Attorney General of the United States. He was confirmed by a unanimous voice vote in the Senate. It received little fanfare at the time because it wasn't particularly controversial--nothing like the contentious, partisan confirmation battles we have seen the last 2 years. There wasn't an attempt--at least so far, and I am keeping my fingers crossed--to assassinate Mr. Barr's character or try to decipher the notes in his high school yearbook like we saw in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. Instead, so far, and to the committee's credit, we have focused on his qualifications. He is clearly smart, articulate, and able. He has a clear understanding of what the role of the Attorney General is and, more importantly, what it is not. An Attorney General should not be a politician. As a matter of fact, the Attorney General has the very difficult job of trying to balance his responsibilities as the chief law enforcement officer in the country enforcing the rule of law along with the fact that he is a political appointee of the President's. To me, that is one of the most difficult positions in the Cabinet to hold. But Mr. Barr has done it before, and I think he can do it again. He, of course, has great institutional knowledge about the Department of Justice. In addition to Attorney General, he held the job of Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel and Deputy Attorney General before he was promoted to the top job Back in 1992, when Mr. Barr was confirmed, then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary, Joe Biden--President Obama's Vice President--said he would be a fine Attorney General. This morning, I heard Mr. Barr discuss the qualities that undoubtedly led Senators on both sides of the aisle to support his confirmation. He spoke of the importance of acting with professionalism and integrity. As a matter of fact, he said that at 68 years old, he basically had decided to semi-retire, only to answer the call by the President to return to public service. He said: I am completely independent. I will make the hard decisions. I will make the right decisions. I will help restore the reputation of the Department of Justice and the FBI to an apolitical, a nonpolitical department, which is exactly what we need. He wants to make sure that the character and reputation of the Department of Justice is enhanced and restored and then maintained, and then it could withstand even the most trying political times, including those in which we presently live. He spoke of serving with independence, providing no promises or assurances to anyone or anything, other than to faithfully execute and administer the laws of the United States of America. It is clear to me that he maintains the same views he held 27 years ago. I share his view that the Department of Justice should function outside of the highly politicalized times we live in. The fair and impartial administration of justice is the highest obligation and duty of this position. I believe Mr. Barr is an outstanding nominee and, once confirmed, will be an outstanding Attorney General. I look forward to voting yes on his nomination. Government Funding Madam President, on the matter of the government shutdown--the 25 percent of the government that is presently not funded--last week, I traveled with the President, along with my colleague Senator Cruz, to the Rio Grande Valley, to McAllen, TX. After the President held his roundtable, where he saw heroin, methamphetamine, and weapons, and heard about the human trafficking, including sex slavery involving children and girls and women, after that presentation--after the President left, Senator Cruz and I sat down with a number of our constituents--county judges, mayors, law enforcement officers, as well as the folks from Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection. They understand the border better than anybody because they live there. They are deeply concerned about the posturing in Washington and how the political arguments seem to overcome logic and listening to the experts when it comes to border security. I was glad for them to confirm once again what they previously told me: that we need to strengthen those border communities and keep our country safe, while keeping legitimate trade and commerce flowing across the border. During our discussion, Scott Luck, Deputy Chief of the Border Patrol, talked about the positive impact of physical barriers and what positive impact they have at targeted locations along the southern border. He said: The physical barrier has worked every place I have been. I have been in places where they did not have it; they put it in and it worked. He mentioned Douglas, AZ, as one of those. He said: There were more people coming into the country there than any other place in the country. I was there. It stopped. It stopped in California. It stopped in Yuma. It stopped in El Paso. It will stop wherever we put it. Despite what our colleagues across the aisle are saying, physical barriers at the border can be effective when coupled with technology and personnel. It doesn't do you much good to have a physical barrier that somebody can go over or around or through and you don't have a Border Patrol agent there to detain them. Actually, the physical border is the last place you are going to stop people trying to illegally enter into the United States, together with the narcotics and the human trafficking, but it is important to have those tools available to the Border Patrol, and that is what Deputy Chief Luck was stressing. He made the comments and observation that physical barriers alone are not the solution for the entire border--a holistic border security approach also requires technology and personnel. When we were discussing the need for building physical barriers in strategic locations, my friend, Cameron County Judge Eddie Trevino, said something to Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd that I think encapsulates the whole debate. He was talking to the Border Patrol and CBP and said: If you tell us where you need it, I think we are all on board. If the politicians tell us where we need it, I think that is where we have our concern. In other words, what Judge Trevino was saying was, let's listen to the experts, the people who know how to use the right combination of technology, tactical infrastructure, and personnel at each given place along the border because it makes no sense to try to treat this like a one-size-fits-all. Anybody who has ever been to the border between the United States and Mexico knows that the geography and topography vary tremendously from place to place. Let's not try to dictate from Washington, DC, where every dollar goes and in so doing try to micromanage the Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security. Let's leave that to the experts--the men and women who work to protect and secure our border every day. What we continue to hear and what I continue to advocate is for a layered approach--barriers where they are appropriate, technology, and personnel. That is exactly what we have been talking about. That is what we voted for in 2006 with the Secure Fence Act. The Democrats supported that, along with Republicans. That is what law enforcement officers tell us they need to operate optimally. Unfortunately, it is what Democrats are now refusing to negotiate and provide. When looking at the border, it is not just physical security we need to be concerned about; we need to be concerned about our economic security as well. During our discussions last week with local stakeholders, we also focused on the importance of facilitating legitimate trade and travel at our ports of entry. I was shocked by this figure, but the Customs and Border Protection Officer there, Mr. Higgerson, mentioned that the trade from Texas ports alone is valued at $300 billion per year. For the State of Texas and border communities in particular, these ports fuel our economy, and we need to provide additional funding to ensure efficient movement across the border. One thing we all agree on is that most of the high-end drugs--the heroin, the methamphetamine, and the fentanyl--come through the ports of entry. So let's modernize those. Let's provide the technology that is needed in order to stop the flow of that poison into the United States. Legitimate trade and commerce is the lifeblood not only of our border region in my State, it is also the lifeblood of our Nation's economy. There are 5 million Americans whose jobs depend on binational trade with Mexico alone. Along with a number of my colleagues from Texas, we are sending a bipartisan letter to President Trump that thanks him for his continued work to secure our southern border. His advocacy for that layered approach, as well as for port of entry improvements, is vital to my State. In that letter, we also address recent rumors to the effect that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' funds might be used for border security purposes, and I have urged the President not to take that route. While I will continue to advocate for additional border security, I believe those funds were intended to support disaster relief and should be used for that purpose. We need both border security and to lend a helping hand to those who are still recovering from natural disasters. We don't have to rob from Peter to pay Paul. We need to do both. I am grateful for the support that has been shown from the President to the people of Texas both in the days following Hurricane Harvey's landfall and in the nearly year and a half since, and I hope he will continue to work with all of my Texas colleagues and me as we rebuild our communities impacted by Hurricane Harvey and as we work together to secure our border.

Mr. CORNYN. I yield.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, if I could respond to my friend, the Senator from Delaware, he speaks correctly--accurately--about some of the symptoms and, I think, some of the cures that we need to put in place to deal with this extraordinarily complex problem. We would love to continue to work with him on coming up with something. We may not want to call it ``Plan Mexico'' but ``Plan Americas'' because what we really have to deal with is a regional challenge. He is exactly right in that most of the illegal immigration now is coming from Central America. Gaps in our immigration and human trafficking laws encourage unaccompanied children and family units to come up to the border because they can, essentially, get placed in the United States while they wait for their asylum claims to be determined by a court, and there is a backlog of 700,000 or 800,000 asylum claims. In other words, the criminal organizations that move people for money into the United States have cracked the code and have figured out how to be successful in placing people in the United States. Unfortunately, it also helps to enrich those organizations that move the poison from south of the border into the United States. They contributed to the deaths of some 70,000 Americans last year alone. I am thinking particularly about the fentanyl, along with the heroin, going from China to Mexico and up across the border. Of that consumed in the United States, 90 percent of it comes from Mexico. I agree that it is the demand here in the United States that enriches the cartels, but they are, more or less, commodity agnostic. In other words, they will do anything that makes them money, these criminal organizations. We need to have people sit down and work together, and I pledge to work with my colleague to try to do that. Yet we can't get a solution as long as the Speaker of the House calls physical infrastructure or barriers immoral. This is kind of a nonstarter to a conversation that we need to have to try to negotiate our way out of this shutdown. I welcome working with my friend.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 2 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 the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 15, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of William Pelham Barr, of Virginia, to be Attorney General, Department of Justice. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 15, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, here we are, January 14. Twenty-four days ago, the border security funding and 25 percent of our government funding lapsed. Democrats refuse to come to the negotiating table with a legitimate offer that would end this partial government shutdown and provide vital funding for border security measures. Their negligence has harmed 800,000 Federal workers who are not being paid while this standoff continues, and it has completely stalled the work here in the Senate because the minority leader, the Senator from New York, has gotten his colleagues to fall in line to block the legislation that is currently on the floor that would offer aid and comfort to our friends and allies in the Middle East, countries like Israel and Jordan. So it has completely stalled our work here in the Senate, as well, and, sadly, their efforts have sought to make border security more of a political football than the national security issue that it is. What I find so cynical is the fact that Democrats have drawn a line in the sand over something they have largely supported in the past. For example, in 2006 we passed the Secure Fence Act. This legislation called for more than 800 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and it authorized additional layered security that we keep discussing-- things like vehicle barriers, sensor technology, cameras, and lighting. That bill passed by 80 to 19--80 to 19--exactly the same kind of border security measures we are talking about today and that Democrats have shut down 25 percent of the government over--80 to 19. Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, and Hillary Clinton all supported the Secure Fence Act. Yet their opposition to President Trump and anything and everything that he wants has somehow become an article of faith for the radical left. A few years later, in 2013, the Senate, with Democrats holding the majority, voted on the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, sometimes known as the Gang of 8 comprehensive immigration bill. That bill, among other things, provided funding for infrastructure--that is, barriers along the border--as well as personnel--the types of things we continue to advocate for today. In total, that bill appropriated $46 billion for border security. So the Democrats--Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi--have shut down the government over $5 billion that the President has requested for border security. Yet 54 Democrats--every single one, in 2013--voted for $46 billion for border security. Well, today, they turn their nose up at the President's request for $5.7 billion, and it makes no sense whatsoever unless you look through the lens of partisan political gamesmanship, because rational actors, reasonable people trying to find a solution, could easily come up with a solution based on this history. It wouldn't take 24 days. It wouldn't take 24 hours--maybe 24 minutes--to come up with a bipartisan, bicameral solution that the President would sign. So what are we talking about? Well, we are talking about the same thing we talked about back in 2006 and in 2013. We are talking about infrastructure. The President likes to call it a wall. Other people call it a fence. But it includes things like vehicle barriers along the Arizona-Mexico border. This is exactly the sort of things we talked about and voted for in 2006 and 2013. The majority of Democrats supported those measures in the past. Yet today they seem proud of what they have wrought, which is that one- quarter of our Federal Government is being held hostage over the same exact measures. Their continued intransigence and refusal to get serious about negotiating shows one of two things: either their party has completely flipped their position on commonsense border security measures or they simply refuse to work with the President because they loathe him. Either way, they should be ashamed, they should be embarrassed, but they are not. While Democrats continue to sit on their hands, the President has said he will consider declaring a national emergency--left with few other options--in order to provide funds for border security. I don't believe declaring a national emergency is either necessary or productive, although I do support the President's request for $5.7 billion for border security. One of the most fundamental constitutional responsibilities of Congress is to provide funding for our government. It is our job. It is our job, not the President's job. This standoff should be resolved as all other funding disagreements have been in the past, where everybody comes to the table with a serious offer and everybody negotiates in good faith. In a democracy, nobody gets 100 percent of what they want. I support the President's effort to secure our borders, period, full stop, but I also believe taking a step like declaring a national emergency and diverting disaster relief to border security would seriously hurt those who are still recovering from the impact of natural disasters like Hurricane Harvey. The storm that hit my State was the largest rain event in American history. More than 50 inches of rain fell on parts of Houston over about 5 days. It destroyed homes, businesses, and communities, and though a great deal of progress has been made, we are still healing. Last year, Congress and the President worked very hard to secure nearly $90 billion in disaster relief for the people of Texas and other States and territories impacted by the devastating hurricanes and wildfires during that time period--an effort, by the way, that the administration strongly supported. In Texas, that money was needed to both support recovery and rebuilding efforts as well as fund projects that would mitigate future flooding from hurricanes. Hurricane Harvey isn't the first hurricane we have sustained, and it will not be the last. We need to get ready for the next one. Diverting those funds away to support border security would be a major step backward and could further harm the victims of Hurricane Harvey. So what Democrats, by their intransigence, have forced the President to do is look at other options like taking money away from disaster relief for border security, but the fact is, we need to do both. We can't rob Peter to pay Paul. We need to do both. I have been grateful for President Trump's continued support of my State as well as other States affected by natural disasters, and it is critical that every dollar of the money supporting Hurricane Harvey recovery is preserved to finish the job. I know that is true, and I know we all feel that way about natural disasters that have hit our State. Sometimes the Senate is referred to as the greatest deliberative body in the world. At times like this, when congressional leaders like Senator Schumer and Ms. Pelosi refuse to negotiate with the President, I wonder whether the Senate is actually blocked by Senate Democrats from proceeding to consider important foreign affairs legislation. I wonder if we can still look ourselves in the mirror and call ourselves the world's greatest deliberative body. Historically, we have been able to reach a consensus on very tough issues, far more controversial than this, because we all believe American interests should come first, that our constituents should come first, and we are there to serve their interests, not merely to play political games and score political points. So it is time for our Democratic friends to come back to the negotiating table so we can finally end this unnecessary and harmful shutdown, and, hopefully in the process, the 800,000 Federal workers who missed their paycheck last Friday can get paid during this next pay period, and we can reopen the Federal Government so we can serve the interests of the American people, as we should have done 24 days ago. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Douglas McDonough, a congressional fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this year.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, from El Paso to Brownsville, TX, my State shares a 1,200-mile border with Mexico. If you were daring enough to attempt to walk that entire stretch, you would trek through deserts, cross mountains, through cities, and probably end up getting a little wet in the Rio Grande River. You would meet folks who are proud of the strong bonds our country has with our southern neighbor. Many, of course, have relatives in both countries. You would talk to sheriffs, police officers, Border Patrol agents, all who care deeply about protecting our communities. And undoubtedly, you would end up eating some good Tex-Mex along the way. In my time in the Senate, I have had the opportunity to meet countless Texans who live and work along the southern border, and I seek their advice and counsel on what Congress ought to do, what the Federal Government ought to do to protect them and their communities. What they tell me is that Texans and the Nation rely on the billions of dollars of legitimate trade that comes across the ports of entry with Mexico. But with the growing volume of goods crossing our borders and the persistent staff shortages for Customs and Border Protection, they want to make sure there are no security gaps that can be exploited by criminals or slow down the legal movement of goods. That is a concern I share, and I continue to advocate for additional improvements in our ports of entry to protect this vital lifeline for our economy, as well as our security. But just as these communities care deeply about the economic benefits of our shared border, they care deeply, of course, about their own safety and security. They believe that both can peacefully coexist, and so do I. During my visits, I have witnessed some of the horrific treatment that migrants receive at the hands of the criminals, including those who smuggle them. The truth is, these criminal organizations that move people and drugs and contraband across our border exploit our porous border and care nothing for human life. It is a commodity. It is the way they make money. They care nothing for the people they hurt, so they wring another dollar out of someone else's misery on a daily basis. It is a high-volume business, too, and incredibly lucrative. I have seen the stash houses with windows lined with tin foil, and inside, a veritable cesspool that makes you want to gag or lose what you had for lunch. This is where the human smugglers cram large groups of illegal immigrants in unimaginable conditions while awaiting their transit to the interior of the United States. I have seen their logbooks where they record their corrupt transactions, correlating real-life human beings with their value in dollars and cents. I have talked to Border Patrol agents who have discovered tractor trailers full of people attempting to enter our country, some of whom never complete their journey because they die from exposure or are smothered to death in the crammed quarters. In Brooks County, TX, where the Falfurrias checkpoint of the Border Patrol is located, about 50 miles north of the border, I have seen unmarked graves of the migrants who were trying to cross vast swaths of South Texas in the August heat in order to bypass the Border Patrol checkpoint but then were left to die by the smugglers. Their graves are marked only with identities like ``skull case'' or ``unknown female.'' Border security is not immoral, as Speaker Pelosi has shamefully claimed, but refusing to act in the face of evil is immoral. It is clear that there is a crisis, as it is clear that it is our responsibility to restore safety and security and order. In my wildest dreams, I never would have imagined we would be debating whether we should secure our borders, as we apparently are now. That is something on which we should all agree. Instead, we should be focused on how to secure our borders and how to do it in a smart, responsible way. In my experience, learning from the experts, they tell me there is no one-size-fits-all solution. You can imagine that with a 1,200-mile border with just Texas and Mexico, with the variety of topography and geography, one-size-fits-all does not work. What works best in the Rio Grande Valley doesn't necessarily work in an urban environment like El Paso, with Juarez right across the international bridge. We need to customize solutions that meet the specific need rather than trying to dictate from here in Washington--thousands of miles away--a solution that solves nothing. We need to look at border security as a combination of three things: physical infrastructure-- yes, that includes barriers, walls, fences, vehicle barriers in appropriate locations, but it also includes technology--radar, ground sensors, drones, aerostats. This is a layered approach that provides flexibility for the experts on the ground to determine what is best for each sector, what is best for each part of our immense border, and implement the changes necessary to achieve desired results. As I said, in many areas, the landscape and location mean physical barriers may not be needed and may not be practical. In rural areas, technology-- censor technology or cameras--may be sufficient, but we know we need additional boots on the ground, too, because it is not enough to put a barrier in place or have a radar or ground censor in place if you don't have the Border Patrol to show up and detain people they discover trying to make their way illegally into the United States or bringing drugs into the United States. So some combination of these three elements I think is always going to be needed, no matter where you are talking about. I am proud of the work we have done in the Senate, generally speaking, and I know when we work together we can do a lot of good, but logic and experience should tell us we shouldn't be the ones deciding how every inch of our southern border is secure. I don't claim to be an expert, although I have gone to school on the topic and spent a lot of time talking to those people who are experts and learning from them. I believe we need to let those experts drive the decision-making process on the right combination of resources needed to achieve operational control of the border. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues' refusal to invest in real border security has landed us in a partial government shutdown resulting in 800,000 Federal workers who on Friday will not get a paycheck. That is unnecessary. Unfortunately, they are collateral damage to a political game which we should not be playing. I know many of these 800,000 Federal workers are already anxious about how they will make a car payment or how they will pay their mortgage or their rent or how they will put food on the table. It is completely unnecessary, this shutdown. I am afraid this debate on border security of course is not really a debate about border security at all; it is a way for congressional Democrats to take a stand against a President they oppose while putting border communities at risk and sending the men and women who protect them to work without pay. This battle has gone on too long, and I can only hope Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer show some leadership rather than continue to take the low road. This shouldn't be about winning a partisan fight; it should be about protecting our citizens and stemming the tide of illegal immigration, drugs, and contraband entering our country. If there were ever a time, now is the time for common sense to prevail and end this senseless shutdown. Remembering Richard Arvin Overton Mr. President, on another matter, I want to share a few words about an American hero I had the pleasure to get to know, Mr. Richard Arvin Overton. Richard's story began more than a century ago on May 11, 1906, in Bastrop County, TX. Throughout his young life, he held a variety of jobs--landscaping, picking cotton, working at a furniture store, and building homes. In 1940, Richard enlisted in the U.S. Army and began his military service at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio. Serving with the 1887th Engineer Battalion, an all-Black unit, one of his first stops was Pearl Harbor, the day after what we now know as the West Loch Disaster. In an interview in 2016, Richard recalled that day, seeing the water turn red from the blood of his brothers, saying: ``I didn't look the same, but I got out all right.'' This was only the first stop on Richard's tour that led him to the Pacific theater. His service included stops in Guam, Palau, and Iwo Jima, where he witnessed firsthand some of the darkest days in our country's modern history. When the war ended, Richard returned to Texas and built a home on Hamilton Avenue. He originally reentered the furniture business and then began working for the State treasury department. At the sprite age of 85, Richard Overton decided to retire. In 2013, the 107-year-old Richard Overton made his first trip to Washington, DC, with an Honor Flight. He was able to witness the memorial built to honor his service and his comrades who died in battle, a sight that brought him to tears. While his military service alone deserves our praise, that is not the only thing that brought Richard to national attention. His comments about the keys to his longevity and long life and particularly his daily routine made Richard an internet sensation. His penchant for enjoying coffee with whiskey and 12 cigars a day won hearts and caused all of us to question the secret to his long life. Richard also enjoyed a bowl of ice cream every night--always butter pecan. He called this the Overton diet and welcomed anyone interested to give it a shot. Richard used his newfound fame to continue life as he always had but with more fans eager to stop by and say hello while he was sitting on the front porch. He continued to live in the same house he built after the war, although the street name has now been changed to carry his name--Richard Overton Avenue. I first met Richard in 2013, and I remember the day my wife Sandy and I met him in his home in Austin. I was taken aback to learn he had just gotten through mowing his lawn that morning--107 years old and still mowing his lawn. Sadly, on December 27, 2018, the story of this American hero came to an end. At the ripe old age of 112 years, Richard passed away, leaving a host of cousins and extended family members. Yesterday, I introduced a resolution, with my colleague Senator Cruz, to honor this great man, his military service, and his enduring legacy. Our country has lost a true patriot, our State has lost a legend, and our community has lost a dear friend. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to begin consideration of legislation that will address some of the seemingly never-ending challenges the world--including the United States--is facing in the Middle East. The decision made at the beginning of the 20th century by then First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, to convert British ships from coal to oil for fuel changed world history by making access to Middle East oil reserves a national security imperative for all developed nations. More recently, on 9/11 of 2001, when nearly 3,000 Americans lost their lives in a terrorist attack directed from Afghanistan on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we learned a hard lesson: Although separated by an ocean, what happens in the region does not stay in the region. Finally, with the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the nuclear aspirations of Iran--the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world--to attain them, the relative stability and security of the Middle East have a direct connection to our national security, as well as that of our allies, like Israel. With the administration's recent announcement that the United States will begin withdrawing troops from Syria, this debate and these votes could not be more timely. While I am comforted by National Security Advisor John Brennan's recent statement that the withdrawal from Syria will be conditions- based, the precise details of how and when it will be executed remain to be seen. One thing, however, is perfectly clear: We cannot allow the creation of a power vacuum in the Middle East to bolster our adversaries' influence in the region. That is precisely what this legislation addresses. The Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act incorporates four bipartisan, noncontroversial bills that were nearly enacted last year, but the clock on the 115th Congress ran out on December 31. As we begin what I hope will be another productive year in the Senate, I am glad we will have a chance to vote on this legislation. Our national interests demand that we fully support and ensure the security of Israel--our closest ally in the region. As the majority leader said last week, this bill affirms that the United States needs to do more than just talk the talk; we must also walk the walk to support Israel's security. This legislation will help Israel maintain its qualitative military edge against ongoing threats by authorizing military assistance and allowing the transfer of equipment and defensive weapons. Importantly, it will also assist Israel in countering the emerging threat of unmanned aerial vehicles deployed by Iran, in particular. In addition to supporting Israel, it will empower State and local governments in the United States to counter the anti-Israel boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement--better known as BDS--and its discriminatory economic warfare against the Jewish state. In addition to nurturing our relationship with Israel, the bill also recognizes the importance of supporting Jordan--another key regional ally. It reauthorizes legislation to strengthen our defense cooperation and support Jordan's response to the overwhelming humanitarian crisis caused by the Syrian civil war. According to the United Nations, there are more than 740,000 refugees in Jordan. That equates to 89 refugees per 1,000 inhabitants, making them the second highest refugee host nation per capita in the world. The impact of the crisis in Syria is immense and potentially destabilizing and requires our support to maintain the peace. Finally, this bill takes critical steps to address the ongoing war and humanitarian crisis in Syria by providing aid to impacted communities and condemns the heinous human rights violations committed by the murderous Assad regime. Until this horrendous conflict is resolved, new sanctions will be imposed on anyone who supports Syria either financially or militarily. It is true that this bill will not solve all the problems in the Middle East. It will not, for example, provide justice to innocent civilians killed by the Assad regime. It will not rebuild the communities treated as collateral damage throughout this crisis. But it is a step to ensure our allies are prepared to fight for and defend our shared national security interests. Senate Democrats have indicated, unfortunately, that they are likely to block this legislation from coming to the floor, as their discussions with the President on border security remain at an impasse. Leader McConnell, though, has made it clear that the Senate will not waste time holding show votes on legislation that the President will not sign, so we continue to wait for Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer to take serious, credible action to break that impasse. Until that time, there is a lot of work we can and should do, such as debating and voting on this legislation, which will protect our national security interests in the Middle East. Twenty-five percent of our government has already been shut down because of this impasse. I urge our Democratic colleagues in the Senate not to shut down the work of the Senate too. I want to thank the majority leader for scheduling this important debate and vote, and I look forward to voting yes when the time comes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as I mentioned, this partial government shutdown continues, now on its 18th day. But 18 days in, not much has changed. The newly elected Democratic House refused to come to the negotiating table with a serious offer or to negotiate in good faith. This entire debate has been surreal. I would say it has been a joke, but it is really not funny. It has now degenerated into a game of silly semantics, while losing sight of just how much is at stake for the people affected. A secure and vibrant border is critical to the safety and livelihood of our entire country, and it, of course, plays a vital part in the daily life for many Texans, especially those who live and work in the border region. If you visit El Paso, for example, out West, you will see firsthand how interconnected the city is with its neighbor, Juarez. Mexico is literally on the other side of the international bridge. Each day at that single port of entry, an average of 20,000 people cross the border on foot legally--going to work, going to school, visiting friends and family, or shopping. That is in addition to the 35,000 car crossings and the 2,500 cargo trucks that cross each day just at the El Paso port of entry. I often compare the United States and Mexico to an old married couple who have occasional differences but who can't get divorced. We depend on one another, and we depend on a safe, secure, and efficient border to allow both countries to live in harmony. Not everyone or everything attempting to cross the border is in our country's best interest. Transnational criminals, drug smugglers, and human traffickers try to take advantage of any opportunity, any gaps in our border, and they use it to infiltrate, threaten, and endanger our communities. For too long, our frontline officers and agents haven't had the tools and resources they need to do their job. Whether it is outdated infrastructure, personnel shortages, or technology, the fact remains that we need additional border security funding to empower these hard- working officers and agents to complete their mission at both our ports of entry and between those ports of entry. After talking to the experts--Border Patrol officials in Texas, as well as local stakeholders--I introduced legislation in the fall of 2017 to address a number of their concerns. That legislation, called the Building America's Trust Act, would have authorized approximately $15 billion over 4 years for a long-term border security and interior enforcement strategy. Notably, the bill provided a great deal of discretion to the Department of Homeland Security's experts on the ground to determine what tactics were needed and where. As my friend Manuel Padilla, former Chief of the Border Patrol's Rio Grande Valley Sector, once told me--he said: The answer to border security from the Border Patrol's perspective is finding the right balance of three things: personnel, technology, and infrastructure. The landscape along the U.S.-Mexico border--particularly the 1,200 miles of common border between Mexico and Texas--the geography varies significantly, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution to border security. That is why it is important to listen and learn from law enforcement and key stakeholders how to adapt the right mix to each area. That way, we can ensure we are deploying the most effective and practical solutions to achieve operational control along the southern border. Yes, we need physical infrastructure in places--a fence, a wall, a vehicle barrier, for example--because the hard-working agents and officers on the ground tell us that it works, and we would benefit from more of it. But we also need personnel to enforce the laws along the border and ensure our ports of entry are operating efficiently. And, yes, we need technology, things like scanners to scan for drugs that are embedded in shipments that come across the border. We need drones, radar, and sensors to help maximize border security, as well as access to the Rio Grande for Border Patrol agents so they can police the border for illegal entry. This shouldn't be a partisan debate, and historically, our differences on this topic have not been so polarizing. I think the nature of our political system today makes it easy to forget that not too long ago, border security was something supported by both political parties. In 2006, the Senate passed the Secure Fence Act by a vote of 80 to 19. That is what I would call a bipartisan victory. Among those who voted for that bill include many current and former leaders of the Democratic Party, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, then-Senator Barack Obama, and then-Senator Hillary Clinton. They didn't believe that fences and walls and physical barriers were immoral, as apparently the current Speaker of the House of Representatives does. Not only did that legislation call for more than 800 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, it also authorized the other important components of border security that I talked about, things like technology and personnel. That was in the 2006. In 2013, more recently, all 54 Democratic Senators voted for $46 billion in border security--every single one--and now President Trump's request for $5 billion is somehow a nonstarter. The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act provided funding for, yes, infrastructure, personnel, and technology. That is exactly the right mix that Chief Padilla mentioned, which I referred to a moment ago. These are really the same types of issues we are talking about today. These are not radical ideas. We need a sensible combination of physical barriers, technology, and personnel. My Democratic colleagues supported border security during the Bush administration. They supported border security during the Obama administration. Now I urge them to come to the table with a serious proposal to help secure our border and end this standoff and to stop the foolishness and the political games. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I now suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I rise to speak for the last time on the Senate floor as majority whip. With the swearing in of our colleagues in January, will come the changing of the guard in our elected leadership in which I have been proud to serve since 2006. As we all know, the whip is also known as the assistant majority leader, and I have been proud to assist our majority leader in all we have worked on together to accomplish in the Senate. I often tell people that ``whip'' sounds a lot more coercive than it really is because in the Senate, you can't really make somebody do something they don't want to do. I understand the term comes from the old country. It referred to the person in fox hunting who was responsible for keeping the dogs from straying during the chase--something I have never done and, no doubt, will never do. One of the fathers of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, in the middle of a contentious debate in the British House of Commons, used the term as far back as 1769. When he used it, he was talking about enforcing discipline, not as a way to punish disobedience but as a way to stay focused on your goal. I think that meaning still holds because the overarching goal of anyone who serves in this position is to keep the team together. The first Republican whip was James Wadsworth, elected in 1915. He served in the Spanish-American War. He opposed Prohibition, and he was chairman of what was then known as the Committee on Military Affairs. In more recent times, the whips have been great Senators and friends, such as Don Nickles, Trent Lott, Jon Kyl, and of course, the current majority leader, Mitch McConnell. All of these men have provided good examples and sound counsel to me at one time or another. What we have tried to do together is to build consensus, to make progress, little by little, for the American people, to seek to inform and gently persuade. Mainly, you listen, and then, one by one, you address your colleagues' concerns. Then it is the job of the whip to count the votes, as the Senate leader passes or defeats legislation, and provide advice and consent on nominees. It is the job of the whip operation to keep its finger on the pulse of the conference, to help the leader find a way to get from point A, a bill introduced, to point B, getting it to the floor, and then to point C, when the bill passes and becomes law. That road can be awfully bumpy at times. Sometimes, it is just like riding a roller coaster. As with any job, there are parts of the job you love more and those parts you love less. There has been a lot of handshaking after big victories, such as the Criminal Justice Reform bill we passed with a huge bipartisan majority last night, and then there is the headshaking after disappointments. It is true that occasionally in this job you come up short, but you learn from your mistakes, you course correct, and that failure can help you succeed later on down the road. That is what happened to us in tax reform. We learned from our disappointing outcome on healthcare and applied it to our next major objective. With tax reform, we laid the groundwork by going through the Finance Committee--regular order. We helped inform. We corrected misinformation, and we responded to feedback. We incorporated input from all Senators who wanted to be constructive and get to yes, and the final bill changed a lot along the way. Another victory I can think of is the passage of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act in 2016, which I think helped lay the groundwork for what we were able to achieve this Congress with the passage of landmark opioid legislation. Of course, there were a historic number of judges we were able to confirm during the first 2 years of the Trump administration, culminating in not one, but two outstanding additions to the U.S. Supreme Court: Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. But the biggest challenge we faced this last year was the nomination of now-Justice Kavanaugh--hands down. Never in my experience has there been a bill or a nomination for which every single vote mattered more, and never have I seen the dynamics change so rapidly. The trajectory of the nomination fluctuated day by day, hour by hour, and sometimes it seemed minute by minute. As new press reports or rumors circulated, the whip operation worked overtime to make sure our colleagues had the most up-to-date information and knew what was and what was not accurate. To refute one rumor or accusation, my whip staff even had to find copies of 30-year-old high school yearbooks and go to the Library of Congress to research drinking games. I know it sounds silly, but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. The research our whip staff put together made the difference for some of our colleagues in the homestretch. Eventually, as we now know, after a lot of hard work and long hours by an awful lot of people, Judge Kavanaugh was confirmed. But near- death experiences can make life all that much more sweet. So the difficulties we faced together on the Kavanaugh nomination made his eventual confirmation all the more satisfying. Other highlights--the things I will remember the most and am most proud of--include the landmark bill we passed to combat human trafficking. The Justice for Victims of Human Trafficking Act--after 4 weeks on the Senate floor, thanks to Leader McConnell and his perseverance, that bill ultimately passed 99 to 0, and we should be very proud of that. Following the horrific shooting at Sutherland Springs, TX, I introduced legislation to strengthen the gaps in the background check system for purchasing firearms. Those gaps had allowed a crazed shooter to cruelly take innocent lives one Sunday morning at a small Baptist Church outside of San Antonio. After we came together in a bipartisan way to pass this bill, I returned to Sutherland Springs. Being with those families, the community, and Pastor Frank Pomeroy--he and his wife lost their daughter--and letting them know we not only shared in their grieving but we had acted together to save lives by preventing future tragedies was one of the most gratifying moments I have experienced in the Senate. We couldn't wipe away their tears, but we could show the families that their loss had not been in vain. We have done a lot of other things that--while they didn't make the front-page news--will greatly impact the lives of Texans and all Americans. We helped America become the energy powerhouse we knew it could be--creating jobs along the way--by facilitating liquefied natural gas exports, and we ended the export ban on crude oil all together. These will have geopolitical consequences that will benefit the entire planet. We passed big bills, like the farm bill, and smaller but impactful bills, like occupational licensing reform, and legislation that improved trade between Mexico and Canada. Then came Hurricane Harvey, the most extreme rain event in our Nation's history. It hit the Texas gulf coast, and then after recovery was undertaken, we had the monumental task of putting together significant disaster relief for Texas as part of a larger disaster relief package that benefited many parts of the Nation. Our job still isn't over, but by linking arms together, the Texas delegation, which we call ``Team Texas,'' worked with Governor Abbott and other State and local leaders to get them what was needed from the Federal Government so that people could begin to put their lives back together. As whip, one of the best parts of my job was getting to know my colleagues better. I learned to listen to them more carefully. I learned that each of them has personal goals, political needs, regional interests, and philosophical principles that influence their decision making. We share a lot in common, but each of us is unique in mostly fascinating but sometimes infuriating ways. Even when you can't convince someone your position is the right one, you always can learn from that interaction, and that is valuable information that can be used on the next tough vote. I also learned a lot about the Senate as an institution. What makes this institution so interesting are the men and women who work here. We have doctors, business men and women, and farmers. Heaven knows, we have more than enough lawyers. We have spouses, parents, grandparents, great-grandparents. We come from different political parties and different parts of the country, but we share a common goal: to do right for the people we are privileged to represent and to make our country a little bit better than when we came. We have very public arguments, but we also get a lot accomplished in quieter moments--over lunch, in the Senate well, in the cloakroom, or sometimes in the Senate gym. During those moments, what shines through is my overwhelming impression of the intelligence, the seriousness of purpose, and the goodwill of the people who work here. That instills in me confidence that despite the swirling controversies that seem to engulf us, the Senate, as an institution, is strong. It is durable and will continue long after we are gone. The late great Bob Bullock, who served for many years as our State's Lieutenant Governor, participating in Texas politics for most or about half of the 20th century, used to say that there are two types of politicians: those who want to be someone and those who want to do something. I will say that in my experience, most people I interact with here are of the latter persuasion. They want to do something good for the American people. I want to express my best wishes to my friend, Senator Thune, the senior Senator from South Dakota, who is taking over the whip job in January. I have every confidence in his ability to do the job, but I also confessed to him it is not all sunshine and lollipops. There will be long days and tough votes. We have all heard the expression that being the whip is like trying to keep the bullfrogs in the wheelbarrow; as soon as you get one in, another one jumps out. But I look forward to continuing to help Senator Thune, the next whip, and the conference and the Senate in any way I can. He has my telephone number. Of course, when you are whip--like any job--you rely on your team members. I couldn't have gotten through these 6 years without a lot of help. First and foremost, I owe a tremendous amount of gratitude to my mentor and friend, Leader McConnell. There is no one in the country who has done more to advance the conservative cause in recent times than Senator McConnell--no one. Robert Caro called LBJ the Master of the Senate. I would like to nominate another one: Mitch McConnell. Under Mitch's leadership in the last 2 years alone, we have bolstered our Nation's economy, fixed our Tax Code, and achieved real regulatory reform. We have transformed our Judiciary, improved veterans' healthcare, and addressed critical public health needs like the opioid crisis. And that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. We have certainly had our fair share of nail-biters--I seem to remember a certain debt ceiling vote, for example--and those accomplishments I mentioned were not easy, given the slim margins. But with Senator McConnell's leadership and more than a few prayers along the way, we did it together. I am proud of our record, and I am grateful for his trust and confidence. Of course, we couldn't have been successful without a strong and reliable team of deputy whips led by Senator Mike Crapo. I leaned on my deputy whip team regularly, and time and again, they delivered. So to Senators Blunt, Capito, Crapo, Fischer, Gardner, Lankford, Portman, Scott, Tillis, and Young, thank you. I also want to thank my whip staff, both current and former. This includes John Chapuis, Sam Beaver, Noah McCullough, Jody Hernandez, Emily Kirlin, Jonny Slemrod, and my first chief of staff, Russ Thomasson. What has been so amazing to me is how seamlessly my whip staff also worked with my Texas official staff as well. We all worked, literally, as one team. I thank all of my Texas staff for their contributions to our successes. We all rely on our staffs around here a great deal, and that is doubly true of my entire staff over the last 6 years. I have come to think of the whip operation as really an intelligence operation. These outstanding men and women have been my eyes and ears. They are all incredibly smart. They are devoted and hard-working. I say to all of them: Thank you for everything you have done to serve the conference and the Senate as a whole. As whip, you are provided with a security detail comprised of Capitol Police officers. These men and women are extraordinary professionals who have become like family. Their work often takes them away from their own families and friends as they travel around the country and sometimes miss holidays and special occasions. They, like all of the Capitol Police, keep the people who work here and visit here safe. We all appreciate what they do for us each and every day. Finally, I want to say a few words about my chief of staff, Monica Popp, who is the chief of staff of my whip office. Monica is often the first person and the last person on my staff I talk to each day. If Beth Jafari, who is my chief of staff in my Texas office, is the glue that keeps our operation together and operating at maximum efficiency, Monica is the spark plug of the operation. As impressive as her knowledge of the Senate is and of how the U.S. Government functions, that is not what sets her apart. She often, in her own gentle but determined way, has pressed me to make just one more call, to meet just one more time with a colleague, or to try just a little harder to nail down the winning votes. She is exactly the type of person you need to have in your corner, but it is her sunny disposition--her optimism--that is infectious. In addition to her extraordinary competence, that makes her indispensable. Monica is known for cultivating and maintaining strong relationships not only in the Senate but in the House and in the executive branch. It is not just limited to my party; some of her closest colleagues work in the leadership offices of our Democratic colleagues. The big bipartisan achievements I mentioned earlier could not have happened without Monica and her ability to lead a team and work across the aisle. Part of the reason she is so effective is she wants to know everything. She even wants to know what Members have for breakfast because she knows how circumstances and small events can sometimes provide insight in unexpected ways. Here is how our staff describes her: ``She is a problem solver.'' ``When you think you're stuck, she'll find creative ways to get a solution.'' The most instructive, I think, is this: ``You want to be around her just to learn.'' I couldn't agree more. To Monica, I say thank you. We couldn't have done it without you. Even though I will no longer be serving as the majority whip, I am not going anywhere. Believe me--serving 28 million Texans here in the Senate is a big enough job for anyone. To borrow a phrase from a great American leader, our late President George Herbert Walker Bush--he said: I am a Texan and an American. What more can a man ask for? Indeed, it is an honor and a privilege to represent the great people of Texas, and I believe my time as whip has only taught me to be a better representative of my fellow Texans. As an elected leader, I have learned that sometimes you have to do things nobody else wants to do because they are controversial or they are risky, but I stand ready to continue to take risks and accept controversy in the pursuit of worthy causes. I close simply by saying it has been a privilege to serve as the whip for Texas, for the Republican conference, and for the Senate. Often, when I am introduced to audiences here and at home, the introducers will refer to me as the No. 2 person in the Senate. Occasionally, they will call me the second most powerful person in the Senate--obviously an exaggeration. Yet I have never been quite able to bring myself to correct them in public if only to save them the embarrassment. Let me just say I will now return to my previous life as the second most powerful person in my household and to my continued service to Texas and the world's greatest deliberative body. I yield the floor. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Montana (Mr. Blunt) and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have a number of consent requests and wrapup as we make our way toward the conclusion of the 115th Congress.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6400 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6893, which was received from the House.