John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 1 a.m., the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1892 with a further amendment; further, that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate vote on the motion to concur.

Mr. CORNYN. Regular order.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have asked unanimous consent that the Senate be allowed to vote on the pending matter, and there have been multiple objections, of course, by the Senator from Kentucky. I don't know why we are basically burning time here while the Senator from Kentucky and others are sitting in the cloakroom wasting everybody's time and inconveniencing the staff. We could easily move this matter forward and have a vote. The outcome will be exactly the same, and it is not inconsequential that the current continuing resolution, I believe, expires at midnight tonight. So the Senator from Kentucky, by objecting to the unanimous consent requests, will effectively shut down the Federal Government for no real reason. I know he wants to make a point. He has that right. I agree with many of his concerns about deficits and debt, but we are in an emergency situation. We have our military that is not ready to fight and win our Nation's wars the way it should be. We have military members who have died in accidents as a result of the lack of training and being stretched too thin because of budget cuts, and we need to fix that. General Mattis has pointed out that more American military members have died in training accidents and in regular operations than they have in combat. That is a tragedy that I would hope all of us would want to address. Then, of course, there is the disaster relief that helps people who were victimized by Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Maria, the wildfires out West, and Hurricane Irma. That is an emergency matter, as well. So I don't understand why the Senator from Kentucky wants to insist on shutting down the Federal Government when, after the time expires under the regular order, the outcome will be exactly the same. I recognize that he has that right, and he has objected to all of my unanimous consent requests to move the vote up earlier, but it makes no sense to me. It will not accomplish anything. I just ask him to reconsider what he is doing in shutting down the entire Federal Government when the outcome of this vote will not be any different after the regular time expires than it would be if we had that vote starting at 10:30 tonight.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ramona McGee, a Department of Homeland Security fellow in my office, be granted privileges of the floor during the consideration of border security and immigration legislation. I also ask unanimous consent that my military fellow Patrick Heiny be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of this year.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, all week I have been speaking about the impending deadline of tomorrow, the continuing resolution that we passed following the shutdown of the government over the DACA issue, and the importance of meeting that deadline. So you can imagine my pleasure at hearing the announcement this afternoon by the majority leader. His hard work leading to this critical funding negotiation has now produced an agreement that both sides should be able to get behind. One of the reasons these negotiations were so significant and why the announcement today was such good news has to do with our military. I happened to have been raised in a military family. My dad served 31 years in the U.S. Air Force and was a B-17 pilot in World War II in the Army Air Corps. Those who have seen the old movies about the B-17, like ``Memphis Belle'' and others, realize what treacherous service that was during World War II. He was shot down on his 26th mission over Mannheim, Germany, and was captured as a prisoner of war for the last 4 months of World War II. But, thank goodness, the U.S. Army and General Patton came through Germany and liberated those POW camps at the end of World War II. My dad came home, built a family, and finished his career after 31 years in the military. So, as you might imagine, the men and women who serve in our military are near and dear to my heart. I recognize the importance of our support not only for the ones who wear the uniform but also the families. Of course, having an all- volunteer military means we have to provide support not just for the servicemembers but for the families as well. When our servicemembers enlist, they sign a contract and, basically, hand their lives over to us to be good stewards of their service and to be in a position of trust. To hold their budget hostage, which is what has happened until now, is to ask them to assume even greater risk in order to satisfy certain narrow political agendas. Given all that our men and women in uniform do for us--to keep us safe, to keep the world at peace as much as possible--it is not too much to call holding that funding hostage a disgrace. Our men and women in uniform can't afford to be hamstrung, especially when we face new and evolving threats across the globe, but because of our inability to produce longer term certainty, they were. That is, until now. The compromise we have reached will ensure both that our troops have what they deserve--in terms of training, equipment, and readiness--and that our country has what it needs in order to achieve ``peace through strength'' across the globe. Since the Budget Control Act of 2011, we have kept discretionary spending, which includes defense spending, relatively flat. Unfortunately, the threats have done nothing but proliferate and increase, and we have seen a number of training accidents like the Fitzgerald and the John McCain where, literally, according to General Mattis, we have lost more servicemembers in accidents as a result of inadequate training and readiness than we have in hostile activities. That is just a shameful situation. Of course, now we have acted to change it. Yesterday, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis testified before the House Armed Services Committee, and he wasted no time in telling us how urgent the situation was becoming. He said that, without a proper defense appropriations bill, the U.S. military lacks the most ``fundamental congressional support.'' As Secretary Mattis stated, the Trump administration's new national defense strategy requires sustained, predictable appropriations in order to be carried out. I am confident that we are heading toward that in light of this new agreement, but it took us an embarrassingly long time to get here, and that is regrettable, to say the least. I join the majority leader and our colleagues in strong support for our men and women in uniform and their families during this week of difficult and delicate negotiations, and I ask my other colleagues to vote to support this bipartisan legislation, to show their support for our military readiness, procurement, and testing--all of which are required to keep our forces the best trained, the best equipped, and the best prepared force on the planet. When we vote on this agreement, we can't lose sight of other critically important issues--issues that seem to fade from people's memories; that is, something like disaster relief. I can't adequately describe the outpouring of support we got from the President on down to neighbors helping neighbors following Hurricane Harvey and its devastating impact on my State. Certainly, our hearts are with the people of the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Florida as they have suffered from Hurricane Maria, as well as our friends and colleagues in the West, who have suffered as a result of the devastation caused by wildfires and mudslides and other hardships. The House passed an $81 billion relief package at the end of last year, and here we are; a couple of months later, we are actually acting on this disaster relief package. It is long overdue. I am pleased, though, to announce that the bill we will be voting on provides significant funding for disaster relief efforts around the country, and I applaud the House for taking the first step in December. I appreciate Governor Abbott of Texas, as well as the Senate Appropriations Committee, for working with us to help us strengthen the House bill. My fellow Texans who were hit by Hurricane Harvey last August have been waiting patiently, along with all the folks who faced the fury of Mother Nature in Florida, California, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. It simply has been unacceptable to see the delay in getting the relief they need to them. Now we have the chance to stand up, finally, in a bipartisan fashion and show not only that we remember what they have been through but also that more help is on the way. That is why I am urging all of my colleagues to support this agreement when we take it up. Kari's Law Act Mr. President, the last issue I wish to address is a bill that I cosponsored called Kari's Law. Two days ago we passed it in the Senate, and soon, I hope, the House will follow suit. It is imperative that we get this bill to the desk of the President for his final signature soon so that it can become law. Kari's Law amends the Communications Act of 1934 to require multiline telephone systems, common in places like hotels and offices, to be equipped for emergency calls. Under the bill, the users of these phone systems will have the ability to dial 911 without first having to dial for an outside line. Why is this important? Let me tell you briefly the story of Kari Hunt Dunn of Marshall, TX. Kari was killed in her hotel room in Marshall, TX, in 2013. Kari's then-9-year-old daughter was unable to reach emergency personnel because she failed to dial 9 to get an outside line. She tried four times but was unable to connect, which meant no help ever came. With this simple change in the default configuration of phone systems in offices and hotels, we can help folks reach the help they need in a crisis quickly, and we can save precious seconds that ultimately could save precious lives. I am grateful to my colleague, the senior Senator from Minnesota, for working with us on this legislation, as well as my colleague Representative Louie Gohmert, who carried the corresponding bill in the House. I also want to thank Mr. Hank Hunt, Kari's father, for his hard work in championing this bill and pushing so hard for this crucial change to become law. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I said I wanted to talk about the issue our Democratic colleagues shut down the government over last month, and that issue is immigration and the path forward on DACA. DACA, again, is Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals. This is something President Obama did unilaterally, circumventing Congress, assuring that in a new administration, it would be called into question, not only in the courts but also by the new administration. President Trump, recognizing that the courts had effectively said what President Obama tried to do was illegal, basically continued it for a time to give Congress a chance to try to respond, and he has given us a deadline of March 5. I heard my friend from Illinois blame President Trump for trying to fix a problem that was caused by an overreach by the previous administration. Don't take my word for it, take the courts which struck down the DACA Program. President Trump has continued it long enough to give Congress a chance to fix it. That is the appropriate response. It is not helpful just to engage in the blame game. We actually need to step up and not just give speeches on the floor of the Senate; we need to actually enter into a good-faith negotiation. To date, President Trump has issued a reasonable framework that will not only give protection to those who were brought here illegally by their parents as children but also fixes other gaps in our broken immigration system--border security, the diversity lottery visa, and ensures that people who are waiting in line patiently can be unified with their family by narrowing the scope of family-based immigration in the future. That is prospective only. One proposal has been to plow those additional green cards into accelerating the passage of people who are patiently waiting in line--some as many as 10 and 20 years. President Trump has done something President Obama never did. He has offered 1.8 million young adults who are currently DACA recipients and DACA-eligible an opportunity to get on a pathway to American citizenship. That is three times more than the young adults who were addressed by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program that President Obama did unilaterally. That is an incredibly generous offer. What has the President requested in return or in addition? He said: Secondly, I want to secure our borders, and I want to address legal loopholes in the current law. That is important because we have to protect our citizens and regain the public trust. One of the very reasons this President was elected is because people are angry that the Federal Government has failed them when it comes to securing our borders and enforcing our laws. I believe the second pillar of what President Trump has talked about, border security, is really a system of physical infrastructure--fence, walls, barriers--but also technology and personnel; that those are the three essential ingredients in border security. We have to ensure that people don't flout the law and enter the country illegally. We all know a porous border is an opportunity for drug traffickers, human traffickers, and other criminals to exploit our porous border. As I said, it is not one-dimensional, it is not just about a wall or a fence or a barrier, it is about technology, personnel, and physical infrastructure as well, and the President has acknowledged as much. I have heard our colleagues across the aisle bridle at what the President has requested in terms of not only a plan for border security but also for the funding. He said he wants $25 billion to make sure the Federal Government finally steps up and lives up to its responsibility on the border. It wasn't that long ago when the Gang of 8--Senator Durbin my friend from Illinois was one of the gang members--proposed and the Senate passed a bill by 68 votes that provided $50 billion for border security. It had other problems, but they were more than generous in providing for border security. Today they chafe and resist and refuse basically to negotiate on this item, when they voted for double that amount in the so-called Gang of 8 bill just a few years ago. The President's third pillar relates to what is known as the diversity lottery visa. Many, including the President, have questioned whether it makes sense to just give out 50,000 green cards a year based on a lottery--a game of chance. They have suggested and the President has proposed that we use those green cards to reward skill and merit. We ought to look at immigration as a way for us to attract the best and brightest, the people who have skills, talents, education, something to offer their new country when they come here. We don't have to end the diversity part, but we can add to it the skills that would help make our country better and allow these new citizens to contribute in a substantial way to their adopted country. The fourth pillar addresses family unification. I say ``family unification'' because I think the recently adopted alternative term of ``chain migration'' has become a pejorative and oversimplifies a very complex area of the law. What the President has proposed is, in the future, we allow people to immigrate to the country based on family relationships, and we confine that to the nuclear family--mom, dad, and the kids. One suggestion has been that the green cards we would save by not allowing collateral family members to come in--married adult children, aunts, uncles, cousins, and the like, based strictly on the family relationship--we could plow those green cards back into the backlog because there are people who have been playing by the rules and waiting patiently in line, some for 10 or 20 years because of the caps we put on country immigration. Why doesn't it make sense to let them reunite with their family members even faster so they don't have to wait so long? I think that makes an awful lot of sense. During the time that backlog clears, there really wouldn't be any reduction in legal immigration. I don't know what the right number is for legal immigration. We naturalize roughly about 1 million people a year. I support legal immigration. I think it makes our country better, but I am not sure exactly what the right number is, and I am not sure exactly what the right formula is. A number of countries, such as Australia and Canada, look at the skills and merit-based system, in addition to family relationships. I think that makes a lot of sense to me. While we are continuing to have this discussion about what should be the long-term rate of legal immigration, it makes sense to plow these additional green cards--that will not be used prospectively by collateral family members based strictly on that family relationship-- back into the backlog and unify the families who have been waiting for their loved one who has been waiting in line, waiting to immigrate legally into the United States. One thing I really appreciate about the President's proposal is, it addresses shortcomings of the so-called Gang of 8 bill that was considered back in 2013. This is where I differ again from my colleague from Illinois. He celebrates the fact that they were able to get 68 votes in the Senate, but it didn't pass the House, and it never got to the President. I am not sure that is a cause for celebration. What I would actually like to see is us take the President's four pillars and actually get a Presidential signature on a law that passes not only the Senate but the House and that the President will sign. I thought that was the goal, not just to go through some futile gesture or to pass one branch of the legislature only to fail in the House. The reason the Gang of 8 bill failed in the House was because it had some serious problems. It had no real objective metrics to determine where technology and infrastructure would be the most effective. It didn't allow the Department of Homeland Security to achieve 24/7 situational awareness and 100 percent operational control of the border. It didn't adequately address the personnel and infrastructure improvements we know are desperately needed at our northern borders and our ports of entry. Finally, even though the Gang of 8 bill contains some provisions to address criminal gangs, drunk drivers, and aggravated felons, it also had generous waivers and still allowed some criminals to qualify for legal status. That didn't make any sense to me then, and it makes no sense to me now. Why would we allow people with criminal records to immigrate into the United States? Worse, the Gang of 8 bill didn't end catch-and-release of criminal aliens, and it did nothing to deter the influx of people who are exploiting a loophole in the law relating to unaccompanied minors. By way of contrast, the new White House proposal addresses these concerns in ways the flawed Gang of 8 bill did not, and I predict, if we embrace the President's four pillars and pass a bill that reflects those requirements, the House of Representatives could pass it, and the President would sign it, which would actually then provide a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million young people. I don't know how some of our friends can look these young people in the face and say: We had the chance. You had the opportunity to receive one of the greatest gifts a human being could possibly accept, and that is a pathway to American citizenship, but we turned it down. Perhaps, we miscalculated, and we figured that, maybe, we can get it through the Senate but we can't get it through the House and we can't get a Presidential signature. So we ended up emptyhanded, and you remain in the same box you were in in the first place. How is that helping these young people? It is not. Well, the White House proposal closes loopholes in the current law that are being exploited by criminal gangs and human traffickers. Let me explain. Under the current law, if somebody is under 18 years of age and shows up at the border, the Border Patrol processes them, and then they are given to Health and Human Services. If they make a claim of some immigration benefit, they are given a notice to appear before an immigration judge, but the backlog there is so great that it could be years down the road, and then they are placed with a sponsor. Here is the problem. First of all, there is no adequate monitoring of these individuals to make sure they actually show up for their court hearing. Current law allows them to be placed with a sponsor that is not legally present in the country in the first place. There are no criminal background checks. So we don't know whether these unaccompanied children are being placed with people who would abuse them, traffic them, or recruit them into criminal gangs. In 2017 alone, the Department of Homeland Security apprehended 41,000 unaccompanied minors across the southern border, and 37 percent were between the ages of 15 and 16, and another 32 percent were 17 years old. So we are not talking about young children. We are talking about, by and large, grown young men. As I mentioned earlier, this number has increased significantly, with more than 11,000 unaccompanied minors being apprehended in the last 4 months alone. They have figured this out. The transnational criminal organizations that traffic in human beings, drugs, weapons, and anything else that is worth a buck have figured this out. They have a loophole in the U.S. law that allows them to charge a fee to bring in these young men, who may or may not be a member of MS-13, one of the most violent criminal gangs in Central America. Now they are unfortunately in the United States, and there is no way for the U.S. Government to keep them out even if they are gang members, under current law. Well, I don't know how our colleagues who refuse to take up this issue and address it justify it. I just can't understand it. In my opinion, we have a real problem that our colleagues either don't want to fix or they are deliberately ignoring. We can't solve these problems by just putting our head in the sand and hoping that the problem goes away. It will not. This is just one example of a loophole, which a border security bill that I introduced months ago, called the Building America's Trust Act, would fix. So if our colleagues are serious about coming up with a solution to our immigration problems and providing a lifeline to these young adults who are DACA recipients and, indeed, everyone who is DACA-eligible, they need to work with us. They need to recognize the reality that President Trump has laid out a pathway for that to happen, but they can't just cherry-pick and pick the parts they like and ignore the rest and expect that we are going to get an outcome. Again, the basic failure in the Gang of 8 bill was that they got 68 votes in the Senate, including $50 billion for border security, but they couldn't get it through the House and couldn't get it to the President for signature. I don't know how to sugar-coat it, but that is failure. That is not success. Success is to get a bill through both Houses and to get the President to sign it. President Trump has given all of us a map, a pathway for how to do that. To my knowledge, there has never been a counteroffer that addresses the four pillars that the President has proposed. Again, I think the people with the most to lose out of this proposition, in addition to the great American people, are these young adults who would benefit from the stability and predictability and a path forward and would receive a gift, as I said, that would be the greatest gift that any human being could possibly aspire to, which is the gift of American citizenship, eventually. But it is going to be squandered. The President's generous offer will be squandered because our colleagues don't like his proposal, but they are unwilling to come up with a counteroffer so that we can actually have a negotiation. The President, I am sure, would welcome that counteroffer, and we would too. We welcome an opportunity to actually get a result here, to make a law and not just go through a political exercise that is destined to end in failure and then become a political issue in the next election. That is not what we should be about here. So I hope that reality will set in. President Trump has offered a proposal. Our colleagues on the other side, who don't like the proposal, have not offered a counteroffer that meets the four pillars. They don't even want to pay attention to the last two--the diversity visa issue or the so-called family unification, sometimes called chain migration. They want to act like that doesn't exist, and I just don't get it. I come from a State of 28 million people, with 38 percent, roughly, of Hispanic origin. We have a 1,200-mile common border with Mexico. Texas taxpayers pay for the border security that the Federal Government fails to fund and facilitate. I want to see a solution. I am happy to vote in favor of a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million people, but I can't go back home and look my constituents in the face unless I tell them that this is the last time we are going to have to do this because we fixed the underlying problem--border insecurity, gaps that are exploited by criminal gang members and the transnational criminal organizations that traffic in them, and these other issues that the President has put on the table. So I hope reality does set in because I really would like to get a bill that we could pass in the House and the Senate and get to the President for his signature and move on to these other important issues: How do we fund our military? How do we fund the community health centers? How do we provide some predictability to the rest of America that is being held hostage to this issue? I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I spoke yesterday about the deadline we have coming up in 2 days. The question is, Are we going to fund the Federal Government? Are we going to keep the lights on, the parks open, the military protecting us, the Border Patrol protecting our borders, or are we going to shut down the government again over an unrelated issue? I listened to my friend, the Senator from Illinois, talk at some length about DACA. I do want to respond to that, but there is no reason we have to do DACA first, because we are engaged in good-faith negotiations, and, indeed, the majority leader has promised that he would take up a bill on the floor of the Senate in our failing to reach an agreement. The fact is that our friends across the aisle have, basically, shut down the government and are now threatening to hold hostage a number of very important measures, which I will talk about momentarily, over this issue that is unrelated to the funding of the government or to these other matters. So what have we had to do? We have had to pass short-term continuing resolutions. We have had five of them since September alone. The impact of these continuing resolutions was brought home to me again yesterday. Usually, I would think about our military and General Mattis, who has pleaded with us to help provide the additional resources that are necessary to make sure that our military is ready, is trained, has the equipment it needs in order to fight and win wars but, hopefully, to maintain our strength so that we will never have to fight a war. That is how Ronald Reagan viewed it. I agree with General Mattis: Peace through strength is the right formula. Yet, when our adversaries look at us with our military--just a pale reflection of what it used to be in terms of readiness because of the lack of funding we have provided--that is a provocation or, at least, an invitation for others to step in and fill the void, and it leads to a more dangerous world. As I said, the harm caused by these continuing resolutions was brought home to me again yesterday when I had a number of people with the Texas Association of Community Health Centers come visit. These community health centers are a vital link and safety net for many Texans and many Americans who don't otherwise have a place they can go for their medical care. They treat people based on a sliding scale, based on the ability to pay, so they are accessible to virtually everyone. What my constituents with the Texas Association of Community Health Centers told me was because of the funding cliff with the continuing resolutions, they don't know how to plan. Their doctors, their medical assistants, and other support staff don't know if they are going to have a job after Thursday, February 8, when the current continuing resolution expires. They don't know whether the patients they treat will actually have a place to go to get that treatment. This is a miserable way for Congress to do business, and it should not continue. We need to provide more certainty and predictability. General Mattis himself said that this basically wastes money because we have to plan to shut down portions of our activities if, in fact, government does shut down. So then we have to restart it again--stop it, start it. It is a waste, it is inefficient, and it is unnecessary. Our friends across the aisle need to release another hostage, too, in addition to the spending caps agreement and the funding needed for our military and the funding needed for community health centers and all the other important functions that are served by the Federal Government. They need to release the hostage of disaster relief. In December, the House passed an $81 billion relief package, but so far our Democratic colleagues have refused to allow us to bring that disaster relief bill up. Again, why? Because of DACA, this unrelated immigration issue that they think is more important than all the people who were hurt by Hurricane Maria, Hurricane Harvey, and the wildfires out West. We do need to address DACA, and we will, but why hurt the victims of these natural disasters in the interim by holding this disaster relief hostage? It is time we stand up in a bipartisan fashion and show these folks in Texas, Florida, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and out West that we remember, and we are going to help them. Why should they have to wait any further? There is no good answer to that question, but I think it is important that somebody come out on the floor of the U.S. Senate and ask the question.

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, here we are again. The clock is ticking. The current funding bill expires on Thursday, and we have to act to keep the lights on. That strikes me as a very modest goal because there is so much more we need to be doing. When our Democratic colleagues shut down the government last month, we knew that this was all we could get at the time, which is a short-term continuing resolution until February 8. Well, this is a miserable way to do business. Continuing resolutions are really an abdication of responsibility on behalf of this body and are not to the benefit of the American people. It doesn't have to be this way. What we are waiting on is an agreement between the leaders of both the House and the Senate to come up with spending caps for the rest of 2018 and 2019. We could have that agreement today, but our colleagues across the aisle are dragging their feet, to put it mildly. For what? Well, it is the same reason that they shut down the government last month. It is over an unrelated immigration issue, which I will get to in a moment. They appear not to have learned any lesson from the shutdown, which clearly the American people did not want and did not agree with. We have two distinct issues that need to be handled separately. Funding the government--particularly funding our military--shouldn't be held hostage to an immigration issue, especially when we continue to work together in good faith on border security and on the young adults who are affected by the deferred action on childhood arrivals, or DACA. I say, let's drop DACA from the funding debate and submit the caps deal right now. As I have said before, short-term continuing resolutions are a terrible way to do business. Governing is not a merry-go-round. We shouldn't have to come back in March and have these same discussions over and over again. This past February 2 happened to be my birthday, but it is also Groundhog Day, and we seem to wake up every morning and go through the same motions over and over and over again and never reach a conclusion. This was brought home to me pretty dramatically today when the leadership from Texas for the community health centers told me that they can't plan. They have employees and healthcare providers who are worried about whether they will have a job because government will somehow fail in keeping its doors open and keep their programs funded. And to boot, patients are worried about whether they are going to have continued access to healthcare, the community health centers that serve vast swaths of this country. Why are people put through all this anxiety--both in terms of planning and in terms of the staff and the patients who depend on these community health centers--just because we can't seem to get our act together here and agree to those spending caps because they are being held hostage to another unrelated issue, which the majority leader has committed to addressing in due course. Well, our colleagues seem to be content to drive around in circles, and--not to mix metaphors--they are spinning their wheels in the process, and nothing actually gets done. But maybe that is part of the plan too. If you look at 2017, we have had a pretty impressive 2017 in terms of what this Congress has accomplished when it comes to overregulations, when it comes to confirming Federal judges, including the Justice on the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch. And then, of course, there is the big tax bill, which was really something that happens only every 30 years or so. It is very unusual. We are already beginning to see the beneficial results of that tax legislation, and people are learning more about it and will continue to learn more about it as they open their paycheck stubs and see how much more take-home pay they have. I am beginning to think that these short-term continuing resolutions and never reaching an agreement on spending caps are part of the plan to just keep us churning and to keep us not producing on behalf of the American people. I hope I am wrong, but it sure feels like that to me. I hope our colleagues will change their tactics and learn from their mistakes. Shutdowns don't help anybody. They certainly don't help the party that is responsible for shutting down the government. So let's get this caps deal done in short order. Here is another thing that has been held hostage to this unrelated immigration issue--disaster relief. It was last September when Hurricane Harvey hit the State of Texas. We had an unprecedented rain event where basically the hurricane parked itself over Houston, TX, and rained down 50 inches of rain in about 5 days, disrupting people's lives, destroying their homes. Some of the winds down along the coast blew businesses and homes away, and people are working hard to recover from that. The House passed an $81 billion disaster relief bill--not just to help the victims of Hurricane Harvey but also the victims of Hurricane Maria in the Virgin Islands, in Florida, and in Puerto Rico as well. And then there are the wildfires and the mudslides out West. Eighty-one billion dollars was appropriated by the House of Representatives, and it has been sitting here since December with no action whatsoever. Why? Well, count that up as another hostage of this unrelated immigration issue or the desire to just force us to spin our wheels and not get things done. I don't understand it, and if I do understand it, I don't like it one bit. The first rule of holes is, when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging. That is the only way to get a different outcome. But our Democratic colleagues have found themselves in a hole and insist on continuing to dig after the disastrous shutdown, leading us to basically driving in circles. I would like to speak briefly about the ongoing border security and DACA negotiations. This is an issue that is very important to me, coming from a State with the largest, longest common border with Mexico, where we see firsthand the impact of illegal drugs, trafficking in human beings, and just the failure of the Federal Government to live up to its responsibility when it comes to securing our borders. We learned on 9/11/2001 how important it is to know who is coming into our country and why they are here, because not everybody who comes to the United States wants to do good by us. Some of them want to do us harm. And certainly that is true when it comes to trafficking in the poison that unfortunately comes across our borders and leaves so many lives in tatters as a result of overdoses and drug abuse. I have talked to a number of my constituents in Texas, including Hispanic leaders, to try to bring them up to date on the discussions that occurred here because they care quite a lot about both of these issues--border security, as well as what we are going to do for these young adults whose only mistake was to come to this country with their parents when they were children. As I have said before--and I will say it again--we don't hold children responsible for the mistakes their parents make. These young people deserve a clear path forward and some certainty in their lives. I think the vast majority of us would like to try to find some way to give it to them, but we are not going to do that unless we can get concrete progress on border security and other reasons why this problem was created in the first place. It was good to get the perspective of a number of my constituents who happen to be leaders in the Hispanic community. Many of them live in border communities. All of them have families or friends who are immigrants. Of course, we are a nation of immigrants, and we need to listen to what they have to say about what is going on. There was general agreement that when it comes to offering a path to citizenship, the President's proposal was surprisingly generous. Nobody expected the President to offer a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million young adults. That was extraordinarily generous. Right now, in the program that was created by President Obama, which will expire March 5, there are 690,000 DACA recipients. They are the people who signed up for this deferred action, not for a path to citizenship, not for legal status, but an agreement by the government that we are not going to try to deport them. They also get work permits during the pendency of their DACA status. This President has offered DACA recipients something President Obama never did--a pathway to citizenship for three times as many as are covered by the deferred action program. The Hispanic leaders I spoke with also supported, in addition to that pillar of what the President proposed, additional border security measures. One spoke about the ``collateral benefits'' to border communities of new technology, personnel, and improved infrastructure. Jobs increase, restaurants and hotels benefit, communities are safer for the families and the children who live there. They stress that when it comes to border security, we need to be thinking about it three-dimensionally. In other words, they said that we need to consider a system. I have heard the Secretary of Homeland Security refer to what the President has proposed as a wall system. It is not just a physical barrier; it is access roads, cameras, sensors, radars, aerostats, and other things to try to make sure our border is secure. Ultimately, my conversation with these constituents was very constructive, but I had to be honest with them. I had to admit that I have been disappointed so far. I haven't heard much in the way of ideas from our Democratic colleagues, other than old proposals that will not become law. Even though they claim to support these young people, the DACA recipients, and even though they claim to support a pathway to citizenship for them, they have done nothing to respond to President Trump's very generous offer and the four pillars of his proposal. So far, they have indicated that they have little interest in negotiating. The deadline set for those negotiations is February 8, just a couple of days from now. After that, we will be here on the Senate floor with an open and freewheeling debate and amendment process. But we want to achieve a solution that can become law, and so far, we haven't had a willing dance partner in our Democratic colleagues. The President has made an extraordinary offer. I don't know whether it is because they don't want this President to claim any credit for any accomplishment or whether they prefer to have a political issue that they want to take to the election in November or whether they are just willing to toy with the lives of these young people because they deem it politically expedient. Well, none of those are acceptable. And it is really puzzling. There is no reason why they shouldn't support closing loopholes for our illegal immigration problem and increasing security on the border. I have heard many of our colleagues across the aisle say: Border security? No problem--until you start asking them to be specific about what that means, not only in terms of an authorization or plan, but what does that mean in terms of appropriations or money? According to published reports, the Democratic leader, the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, offered the President $25 billion toward border security--$5 billion upfront and $20 billion more in appropriations and authorization. Then, after they shut down the government, after the President made his proposal, he took that off the table. So far, we have heard nothing from our Democratic colleagues to respond to the President's generous, good-faith offer. One thing we need to do for sure is to regain the public's confidence when it comes to immigration. We need to reclaim our legacy not only as a nation of immigrants, which we proudly are, but as a nation of laws. That is why people are so frustrated and emotional and angry about the status quo. That is one reason this President was elected. They thought he would bring an end to the lawlessness of our illegal immigration system. But in order to get this done, we have to be able to negotiate in good faith, and we have to be able to compromise, which leads me to wonder, again, whether our friends across the aisle want an issue they plan to take to the election in November or they actually want a solution. Are they going to actually use these young DACA recipients as a means to accomplish their goal, which is to regain the majority in the House and the Senate after the November 2018 elections? I hope I am wrong, but I don't see any indication so far that I am. As the President said in last week's State of the Union Message, the ultimate proposal should be one ``where nobody gets everything they want, but where our country gets the critical reforms it needs.'' That is exactly right. In my home State of Texas, nearly 124,000 DACA recipients are our neighbors. They are an important thread in the fabric of our communities. All of us feel sympathy for these young adults who are in limbo. I remain committed to finding a solution because, in our country, we don't penalize children for the mistakes their parents made. But as the President said last week, ``Americans are dreamers, too,'' and part of their dream is to live in a country where the law is enforced and respected. I support the President in his call for upholding the strong rule of law in this country, but the question for today is, Why hold everything else hostage for this unrelated immigration issue? And why, if our Democratic colleagues are willing to shut down the government over that unrelated immigration issue, aren't they willing to respond to the President's generous, good-faith offer to bring a solution to the problem? We need to know what their plans are. What is their proposal that can become law? The clock is ticking. We know the ending date for this program is March 5. Ultimately, what we are dealing with is people's lives. What do our colleagues care most about? Do they care about political advantage or trying to preserve an issue that will be to their advantage in the upcoming election? Or do they actually care about these young DACA recipients, 690,000 of them, or the 1.8 million that President Trump has offered--an incredibly generous offer--as long as we can deal with these other issues like border security, chain migration, and the diversity lottery visa? We are waiting for our Democratic colleagues to come to us with a good-faith proposal, but so far all we hear is crickets. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) would have voted ``yea.''

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, as we all know, tonight the President will address the Nation from the Chamber of the House of Representatives. This is called the State of the Union, and its tradition dates back to George Washington's time when he gave his first annual message in 1790. Tonight is an important speech. It gives the President a chance not only to look forward but to look back on the first year of his term in office. That first year was marked by a steady stream of impressive accomplishments working together with Congress. These successes are easily missed when the decibel level here in Washington remains so high. The good news all too often gets drowned out by the noise, although, the truth is that the President's policy decisions have been spot-on, particularly when it comes to our Nation's economy. First and foremost, last year he signed comprehensive tax reform into law. This is something we haven't been able to do since 1986. Our reforms lowered rates across the board for every tax bracket, doubled the child tax credit, and incentivized U.S. businesses to create jobs here at home rather than overseas, and, finally, it repealed the ObamaCare individual mandate, making the Affordable Care Act voluntary and not mandatory. All across the country, we have seen the chain reaction as at least 263 businesses, large and small, have used the tax savings to increase workers' wages, expand their operations, and create jobs. According to one poll, small businesses' optimism is now at an 11-year high. The economy, thank goodness, continues to improve. A key economic indicator rose more than expected last month, but the momentum has been building over the last 12. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has reached record highs. Everyone with a 401(k), a savings account, a pension, or somebody who dabbles in the stock market has seen the value of their holdings go up by about 25 percent in this last year. Federal workers who invest in their thrift savings plans through these index funds have seen their retirement funds grow to a huge amount--25 percent--consistent with the stock market. President Trump's economic policies have been joined by his administration's strong insistence on suspending or eliminating job- stifling regulations. Now, don't get me wrong. Regulations are necessary for public health, safety, and welfare, but they can go too far and stifle innovation and economic growth. Unfortunately, that is what has happened. He signed an Executive order when he first came to office and has cut at least 16 rules and regulations for every new one that was created. I think his original goal was to cut two for every new one, but, actually, he has done better than that. He has cut 16 for every new one that was created, and that has saved roughly $8.1 billion in compliance costs. We need to keep in mind here in Washington that when we pass a law or when we pass a regulation, somebody often has to hire somebody to comply with that law. If there is a change in the Tax Code, you have to hire an accountant to help you figure out how to comply with the law or, if you are a manufacturing facility, you want to make sure OSHA and other Federal agencies don't come in and fine you so you hire people to help you comply with regulations and laws. These aren't people who necessarily help you become more productive; these are just people to keep up with the rules and regulations that emanate from Washington. The savings, as a result of rolling back some of the unnecessary regulations, has been pretty dramatic. We in Congress did our part using the Congressional Review Act to eliminate heavyhanded regulations passed during the eleventh hour of the last administration. President Trump's policies have stimulated the economy in other ways too. They have expanded energy infrastructure projects like the Keystone Pipeline and, with the help of Congress, opened part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas exploration. This is something that was set aside specifically for energy production years ago, but as a result of the logjam in Congress, that important natural resource for America was out of bounds because of congressional inaction. Well, no more. I have flown over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and, believe me, it is not someplace you would go on a vacation. It is a pretty rough area, but because people think of it as a wildlife refuge, they think, well, maybe this is a threat to the wildlife. Just the opposite is true. We know the caribou population has sprung up in areas where they have an oil pipeline because they use it for nesting grounds. It just goes to show how little the bureaucrats here in Washington who believe there is nothing they shouldn't regulate or overregulate--they can be wrong. Meanwhile, the President has been hard at work enforcing our immigration laws, something he was elected to do. He has added immigration judges and removed more than 36 percent more criminal gang members than in fiscal year 2016. When it comes to immigration in the Senate, we have been working together to find a bipartisan solution for the recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals--the so-called DACA Program. People will remember this was something President Obama did, unilaterally circumventing Congress, and the courts later told him, no, he couldn't do it, placing the future of some 690,000 young DACA recipients in jeopardy. President Trump wisely has given us a deadline of March 5, but kicked it back to Congress to do what only Congress can do; that is, to come up with a solution. The President, helpfully, has laid out his priorities, and now we in this Congress have to come up with a consensus on how to move forward. We know these young adults deserve future certainty, but also we don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past. We finally need to secure our borders and fix the flaws in our immigration laws that are exploited by the human traffickers and coyotes, and we aim to do both. There has to be symmetry. On one hand, we can show the sort of compassion that Americans have always shown, but we also need to have the security and knowledge that our laws and our border will be enforced. The President shares this dual aim. On Sunday, my friend and fellow Texan, Roger Rocha, the head of the League of United Latin American Citizens--or LULAC--sent a letter to President Trump. Now, you wouldn't ordinarily think that LULAC and President Trump would see eye to eye, but here, President Rocha congratulated the President for setting what LULAC called a reasonable framework for immigration reform and border security. LULAC stated that as long as we stay within the President's parameters, the organization can support the eventual proposal because they are eager to make sure these young people--some 690,000--have a positive future. The President has gone over and above that and said, not only the people who signed up for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, but those who were eligible and who did not sign up can still participate in this pathway the President has prescribed for them, as long as we do our job when it comes to border security--dealing with the diversity lottery visa and dealing with chain migration. I think LULAC's endorsement of these four parameters is very encouraging. It is huge news. LULAC has more than 145,000 members, and it is heralded as one of the oldest civil rights organizations in America itself. It believes that now is the time to move forward, and that is something, hopefully, all of us will agree with. LULAC believes the President's framework will keep the momentum of progress on its proper trajectory, they say. What this means is, President Trump is now on the brink of delivering something to the American people--certainty to DACA recipients, enforcement of our immigration laws, and securing our borders--that previous Presidents have been unable to do. Let me say that again. What this means is, President Trump is now on the brink of delivering to the American people certainty for the DACA recipients, enforcement of our immigration laws, and securing our borders, something previous Presidents have been unable to accomplish. Democrats remain at a standstill on the very issue they have advocated for years, though. To my Democratic colleagues, I say the following: We are still waiting to see your alternative that could become law. The President has made a proposal. So you owe it to the American people, and you certainly owe it to the DACA recipients--whom some people call the Dreamers--you owe it to them to come up with an alternative. We can't negotiate with ourselves; we need a negotiating partner who will work with us in good faith to get to a solution that can get a Presidential signature. We are running out of time, and we need to get this done. One unsung story of President Trump's first year has been the reshaping of the Federal judiciary. He nominated 73 Federal judges, including Neil Gorsuch, above all, who was confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court last spring. We have helped him see that 12 appellate court judges have now assumed the robe and taken to the bench. This, of course, is the intermediate appellate court that, for all practical purposes, is the court of last resort, since the Supreme Court of the United States only hears about 80 cases a year. They decide cases where the appellate courts disagree or where there is a dissent by one of the judges, and usually it is the circuit courts that are the final word, interpreting, of course, Supreme Court precedence. I am particularly proud of two of those supreme court justices: Don Willett, formerly of the Texas Supreme Court, and Jim Ho, who has served as my chief judiciary counsel, among other distinguished service, and who was a law clerk for Clarence Thomas and served as solicitor general of Texas. I am proud of the fact that these two men are now serving on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Last but not least, the President has worked to increase defense spending and shown deft leadership in handling a broad array of foreign threats. I think that is, in part, responsible and due to the incredible team he has surrounded himself with, including General McMaster, the National Security Advisor; Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State; and James Mattis, Secretary of Defense. They are a strong and impressive team, and they serve the President and the Nation well by providing the President the kind of advice he needs to lead and to keep our country safe and to maintain America's leadership in world affairs. We know, for example, that under our military leaders' strategy, as authorized and enabled by the President himself, the terrorist organization ISIS has lost most of its territory and many of its followers. This administration has also strengthened U.S. policy in Iran, which is the No. 1 state sponsor of international terrorism. He has held Syria accountable for crossing redlines when they violated international norms by using chemical weapons--something the previous administration declined to do. This administration has stood up to an increasingly belligerent North Korea and used diplomacy to encourage China to use its clout as a bordering nation to North Korea to try to dissuade Kim Jong Un from pursuing his nuclear power goals. I hope that is successful. It is no surprise, then, that based on polling data, Americans are substantially more satisfied with the Nation's military strength, security from terrorism, and the state of the economy now than they were at the end of the previous administration. Our President is only 1 year into his term, but he has already changed this country's political landscape. I share his goal of continuing to build a safer, stronger, and prouder America. The question then becomes how, working together, we can do that. During tonight's State of the Union Address, there are a few specific topics I look forward to hearing more about--shared priorities for the upcoming year--for example, rebuilding our Nation's depleted infrastructure. I recently introduced a bill with our colleague the senior Senator from Virginia. It would expand an infrastructure financing authority already in use by many States and local governments. I come from a big State, where we have a growing population, and we need to continue to build our infrastructure there to keep commerce flowing and to keep our roads safe and to protect our environment. This legislation I have introduced with my colleague from Virginia would raise the statutory cap on something known as private activity bonds, which assist various types of transportation construction. In the near future, I expect to introduce other infrastructure initiatives, and I look forward to working with my colleagues as well as this administration to see them signed into law. I am also keen to hear the President's thoughts on issues relating to public safety and law enforcement. I myself am a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, but I believe tragedies like that which occurred in Sutherland Springs prove the incredible danger of dangerous felons purchasing and possessing firearms. That is illegal, but it happens, and, unfortunately, the consequences can be devastating to the families affected. That is why I have introduced the bill we call the Fix NICS Act. NICS, of course, is the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which makes sure that when you go in to purchase a firearm, if you are a convicted felon, if you have been committed for mental illness, or if you are guilty of domestic violence, you cannot legally buy a firearm in America, but if the background check system isn't uploaded properly, as in this case the Air Force declined--or I should say failed--to provide the necessary information to the criminal background check system, somebody can go in and lie and purchase firearms they can't otherwise legally purchase. That is why it is so important that we fix the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. That is something that has broad bipartisan support, and I hope to see it passed into law soon. I see my colleague from Rhode Island here whom I have been working with on prison reform, another issue I hope the President touches on this evening, and I believe he will. I believe one of the most effective ways for us to legislate is to let the States be the laboratories of democracy. In this case, many of our States have been laboratories of democracy when it comes to reforming our criminal justice system and specifically our prison system. I know, for a long time, people had this idea that we are going to lock up folks and throw away the key, but the reality is, people who go to prison usually get out of prison. The question is, Are they going to be better prepared when they get out and hopefully avoid reincarceration and hopefully become productive members of society or are they just simply going to be warehoused and then let out, only to repeat their criminal acts and end up back in prison again? We have had some enormous success in Texas and others States about incentivizing low- and medium-risk offenders, to provide them an opportunity to deal with their drug or alcohol problem or to learn a skill that they can earn a living with once they get out of prison or to get a GED. They have been very successful in cutting down on the rate of recidivism, decreasing the crime rate, and along the way saving the taxpayers money because they don't have to just build another prison to warehouse more people. We can keep the hard-core criminals locked up while we extend an olive branch and some help, a helping hand to those who will take advantage of it to turn their lives around and become productive members of society. So I am looking forward to the President talking about that. I know the President will be talking about that and other important issues, such as immigration, and he will be speaking from the heart tonight, and we should all listen to his words carefully. Whether we voted for this President or not, he is the duly elected President of the United States, and we, I believe, are obligated--those of us in Congress--to work with him, where we can, to try to help make things better for the people we represent. Once he concludes his remarks tonight, then the ball is in our court to follow up on his calls to action, and I hope we will. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, last week marked the 45th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, but many of us were not celebrating because last week gave us another opportunity to consider the real damage caused by the Supreme Court decision, which even liberal scholars have now said is flawed in the type of damage it has done to the social fabric of our Nation over the last four and a half decades. During this period of time, more than 50 million unborn children in America have been denied the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--50 million. In other parts of the world, unborn children have been killed by the sheer fact that they happen to be girls instead of boys or because one has a disability like Down syndrome. For me, Roe v. Wade hits close to home because I come from the State where the lead plaintiff was living at the time of that now famous lawsuit. Her name is Norma McCorvey, or Jane Roe in the case. She was from Dallas, TX. What is unknown, generally, but interesting, is what is left out of this story when you hear about Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade. Mrs. McCorvey, actually, never went forward with the abortion. She gave birth instead, and her child was adopted. She later became an influential pro-life advocate. Her story should give us cause for hope that change is possible-- change of the human heart, change in the direction of the country--when it comes to unborn children, as should events like the March for Life that happened earlier this month here in Washington, where more than 100,000 pro-life men and women, young and old, descended on our Nation's Capital. I want to applaud President Trump for becoming our Nation's first sitting President to address the march. Hope is increasingly being provided by advances in science that have dispelled some of the mythology associated with abortion. Advancing technology is making it easier for many to see the humanity of a growing child and to realize that it does have moral status. One physician at Northwestern University recounted recently: The more advanced in my field of neonatology, the more it just became the logical choice to recognize the developing fetus for what it is. . . . It just became so obvious that these were just developing humans. Testimony like that lends credence to the bill that we are voting on today. It is called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. I don't doubt that some of our colleagues would just prefer to remain silent and to hope this vote passes without many people paying much attention, but I hope that doesn't happen. It is an entirely appropriate occasion for us to talk about abortion and its role in our society and how it is increasingly out of step with modern science and people's recognition that these are indeed unborn human beings. This legislation protects unborn children at 20 weeks, or 5 months. Who among us thinks that it is appropriate to have an elective abortion after 5 months in the womb? That is what we are talking about. We are specifically talking about the child's ability to feel pain at this stage of development. It doesn't apply in cases where the mother's life is at risk or in cases of rape or incest. It does have those exceptions. Advances in modern medicine help babies born at 21 and 22 weeks to survive. In other words, we are talking about unborn children who could survive outside the womb, who are still subject to elective abortion in this country. So babies roughly the same age are clearly alive and need our protection before they are born as well, and this bill will help provide that protection. Incredibly, the United States is only one of seven countries that allow elective abortions past 20 weeks. It is not exactly an honor to be in the same category as North Korea, Vietnam, and China when it comes to allowing elective abortions after 5 months. I am glad that the pain-capable bill has passed in 20 States, including my home State of Texas. It has been estimated that the law we are voting on today will save approximately 12,000 to 18,000 babies annually. That is 12,000 to 18,000 lives saved were this bill to pass. That is hopeful news. Polls have shown that a majority of Americans support a prohibition on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. This is one thing that brings people who consider themselves to be pro-life and people who consider themselves to be pro-choice together, common ground recognizing that at some point you are talking about a human being capable of living outside the womb. As my colleague from Oklahoma, the junior Senator, told us on the floor recently, people all across the country are waking up. They are beginning to say, as he put it: Wait a minute, that child has 10 fingers and 10 toes, unique DNA that is different from his or her mom and dad, [and] the child feels pain in the womb and has a beating heart. . . . That sounds like a child. He is absolutely right. It sounds like a child because it is one. I wish to close by quoting Winston Churchill, who I realize is perhaps an unlikely figure to bring up at a time like this. That great leader once said that ``a nation that has forgotten its past has no future.'' Here in the United States, we have forgotten our past when it comes to abortion. We have forgotten, for example, that some of the original advocates of abortion had ties to the eugenics movement. They believed that you could eliminate people who had disabilities or who were frowned upon for one reason or another by virtue of their gender or other characteristics they had no control over. They often promoted forced sterilization because some people, in their view, simply shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. One example is Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who is known to have spoken with the Ku Klux Klan and other disreputable organizations about her views. We have forgotten, as well, the activists advocating on behalf of racial minorities in the 1960s and 1970s who once emphasized abortion's civil rights connection--that protecting the unborn represented an effort to protect the weak and the disenfranchised. Respectfully, I call on all of our colleagues to remember these connections and to see how far we have come--and not in a positive way. These colleagues of mine often describe themselves as pro-choice, but they actually are not unique in that regard. We all attach value to choices. As others have said before, we all know that choices have consequences and that some are better than others. Each of us represents the sum of his or her choices, too. As a society, we should choose to offer pregnant mothers who are worried, financially insecure, or alone options other than abortion. We not only should do this, but we must. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the pain-capable legislation we will be voting on in just a couple of hours. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, now that the government is up and running again, we need to look ahead at what our legislative priorities should be. I can't speak for everybody, but I can speak for myself. My priorities are threefold. First, we need to expedite disaster relief. In December, the House passed an $81 billion disaster relief bill designed to address the natural disasters caused by Hurricane Irma, Hurricane Harvey, as well as the wildfires out West. That has been sitting in the Senate since December. We need to act and act with dispatch. Everybody remembers Hurricane Harvey--we certainly do in Texas--which pummeled us last August. It was last August; this is February. Most of the media attention in the months since has focused on the city of Houston, which quite literally was torn apart. This was the most intense rain event in American history--more than 50 inches of rain fell in 5 days. Other areas beyond Houston fared worse--I am thinking of cities like Rockport and Port Author on the Texas coast. I am thinking of cities like Victoria and Beaumont. More than 28,000 square miles were flooded. Crops rotted, livestock died, and almost 6 months later people are still piecing together their lives. In addition to Hurricane Harvey, as I said, there was Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Maria, and there were the wildfires that burned across California that later resulted in mudslides after the rains fell. I know the Federal Government is not the only entity charged with ensuring help gets to these places, but it certainly has an important part to play. This morning, I attended the U.S. Conference of Mayors and saw a number of my mayors from Texas who were part of the success or at least the management of this natural disaster in Texas. They have done their part. The State has done its part. It is time for the Federal Government to step up, and it is time for the Senate to pass this supplemental bill that was passed by the House in December. The second priority I have, personally, is lifting the spending caps that impair our national defense, particularly our men and women in uniform. In my remarks yesterday, I said this is a problem set in motion by the Budget Control Act of 2011. While well-intentioned--for a while it did hold down discretionary spending and reduced our deficits and our debt--its implementation has not stemmed our national debt, but it has tied the hands of our military. This is an important lesson. It is not defense spending, it is not tax cuts, it is not discretionary spending; it is the mandatory spending in our entitlement programs which continue to run up deficits and debt and which threaten us and our financial future, to be sure. In the meantime, our military faces readiness challenges across the globe. We simply must listen to people like Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. We should lift the caps, end sequester so our military no longer suffers and so our national security is on safer ground. The third on my immediate to-do list is working with a bipartisan group of legislators as well as President Trump on the issue of the DACA recipients. As everybody who has been paying much attention in recent days knows, this is a group of about 690,000 young adults who came into the country as children because their parents brought them in illegally, in noncompliance with our immigration laws. In the United States, we don't hold children responsible for the mistakes of their parents, nor should we punish these young adults who have now grown up because their parents broke our immigration laws. We know they face an uncertain future, and much of the responsibility for our porous borders should be borne by Congress--not only the present Congress, but past Congresses--for basically turning our heads the other way while people continued to immigrate illegally into the United States. We are going to need to improve our infrastructure, personnel, and technology to make sure we don't experience that sort of rush of illegal immigration in the future, which is why some of our Democratic colleagues like to say that we need to protect DACA recipients, which we are willing to do. But we want to make sure there is not a repetition of this in 3 years or 5 years hence. So there are important measures we need to combine with that, and the President has told us that he is going to insist upon--and he is correct in doing so--a robust border security component, as well as ending chain migration and the diversity lottery visas. From the news I saw this morning, it sounds like the President made some statement about the first piece of that puzzle last night. We are expecting to hear more from the White House on how they expect Congress to respond and what the President would find acceptable here in the next few days. This bill can't become law without the President's signature. So the President's views are not irrelevant, but we are the ones who have the primary responsibility to resolve these complicated issues. Getting 60 votes is not the only thing we are aiming for. Certainly, that is the hurdle we have in the Senate, but it would be a futile act if the President wouldn't sign it or if it wouldn't pass the House of Representatives. So we have our work cut out for us, and I know the American people will not support it unless it is a serious and well- thought-out proposal. The blowback will be strong, and we will face a harsh reprisal if we don't take into account the opinions and the views of our constituents back home, which I intend to do. Beyond these short-term actions, which we need to move on as soon as possible, there are other priorities I would like to mention as well. Infrastructure is something everybody likes to talk about, until you ask the question: How are we going to pay for it? Recently, I introduced a bipartisan bill with Senator Warner from Virginia that would expand an infrastructure financing authority already in use by many States and local governments across the United States. This legislation is called the BUILD Act, which would raise the caps on a specific category of what are known as private activity bonds, giving additional access to tax-exempt bond authority for the purpose of constructing highway projects. I was with a number of Texas mayors earlier this morning, and they told me they see that as a positive development, something they can use in their cities. They appreciate that during the tax reform debate we maintained the tax-exempt status of municipal bonds used for those kinds of purposes. In the near future, I intend to introduce a few other legislative initiatives to help rehabilitate our Nation's infrastructure. I come from a State that is growing because we are creating so many jobs, and that is putting a strain on our existing infrastructure. So for the interest of public safety and the environment, as well as our economy, we need to repair and build out our infrastructure. I know the White House has some plans in this area as well, and we look forward to hearing more about them and working with the administration when it comes to infrastructure. Thinking about other areas that we could work on in a bipartisan fashion, I firmly believe it is important for us to look at success stories in the States, and then, once these laboratories of democracy have done things that actually result in positive things, we can then learn from them and scale them up at the Federal level. That is one reason I am very interested in taking the lessons we learned in Texas and other States on prison reform and offering a better, more enlightened, and sensible path to reentry for people who made mistakes and ended up in our jails and prisons. Not everybody is going to take advantage of it. In my visits in Texas prisons, I know illiteracy is rampant. Some people have drug or alcohol problems that need to be addressed. Some people just need to learn basic job skills if we expect for them to succeed once they get out of prison. We have used various incentives for low-risk offenders in Texas to provide them opportunities to address each of those concerns, and it has been quite successful. Not only have fewer people recommitted crimes and ended up back in prison, but our communities have become safer as a result, and taxpayers have had to build fewer prisons in the process. I have been working in the Senate on a bipartisan way with my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, and my colleague from Utah, Senator Lee. I know this issue has gotten some real traction thanks to President Trump and the roundtable he hosted at the White House earlier this month. More than 11 million people go to jail each year in the United States, and there are currently 2.3 million people under confinement. This is a matter of great public concern, but to me the No. 1 concern is public safety. If we can keep the public safer, if we can save taxpayer dollars, and if we can help people who are willing to accept the opportunity to turn their lives around and become productive members of our society, it seems to me that we ought to be doing that. I look forward to hearing more--perhaps even from the President during the State of the Union Address on Tuesday night, if he chooses to mention his interest in that topic, which I know he is interested in. Finally, we have to keep filling our judicial vacancies. Last year, we were able to put two Texans on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but more district judges have come through the pipeline this year. One of the judges we confirmed earlier this month is David Counts from Midland, TX. He will be serving in the Western District of Texas. Just this week, the President announced his intention to nominate another judge for the Western District of Texas, Alan Albright, as well as Cam Barker, Jeremy Kernodle, and Michael Truncale for the Eastern District of Texas. We are a big State. So we have a lot of judicial vacancies, and Senator Cruz and I are working hard, together with the White House, to make recommendations to President Trump for nomination. They go through a very extensive vetting process. Senator Cruz and I have created something we call the Federal Judicial Evaluation Committee, which is a group of our most experienced practitioners in the State, on a bipartisan basis, to evaluate the people who apply for these important life-tenured positions. I want to compliment the President for his sterling picks for the judiciary, certainly so far, starting with the Supreme Court of the United States. But at the intermediate appellate courts, like the Fifth Circuit and these district courts, these are the people who do the day- in and day-out work of the judiciary to make sure that all Americans have access to justice and the opportunity for a fair hearing before an impartial judge. That is one of the most important things the Federal Government provides through our judicial branch: ``Equal justice under law,'' as the words above the Supreme Court building say.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I 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 Thursday, January 25, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on pending nominations. Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 25, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Global Challenges and the U.S. National Security Strategy.'' 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, January 25, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``CFIUS Reform: Administration Perspectives on the essential elements.'' Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 25, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``This is Not a Drill: An Examination of the Wireless Emergency Alert System.'' 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, January 25, 2018, at 10 a.m., at the Washington Convention Center, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Road to Tomorrow: Energy Innovation in Automotive Technologies.'' 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 Thursday, January 25, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act: Access and Innovation.'' 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 Thursday, January 25, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Frank T. Brogan, of Pennsylvania, to be Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 25, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on subcommittee assignments and the following nominations: Kurt D. Engelhardt, of Louisiana, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, Barry W. Ashe, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Howard C. Nielson, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the District of Utah, James R. Sweeney II, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana, and John C. Anderson, to be United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico, Brandon J. Fremin, to be United States Attorney for the Middle District of Louisiana, and David G. Jolley, to be United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Tennessee, all of the Department of Justice. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 25, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Combatting the Opioid Crisis: Exploiting Vulnerabilities in the International Mail.''

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, on Monday, Democrats relented after 3 long days and allowed the government to reopen. They agreed to pass a continuing resolution to reopen the government until February 8. I am glad they finally decided to fund the Children's Health Insurance Program on which 9 million vulnerable children rely as well as fund our military and essential government entities that could not operate during the shutdown. Now we have to work on other items that have been stalled and held hostage too. The first is disaster aid, which has been held up for months. The House of Representatives passed an $81 billion disaster relief bill back in December, but so far that package has gone nowhere in the Senate. That is incredibly disappointing and exacerbates the hardships to the victims of Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Harvey, as well as the folks out West who suffered extreme wildfires, floods, and mudslides. They need to get access to that $81 billion of disaster relief funding the House passed last December, but that too has been held hostage in the U.S. Senate. It is especially disappointing in my home State of Texas. I just got off the phone talking with Governor Abbott, who is perplexed--the kindest word I can think of--as to why we would continue to delay disaster relief to the people who suffered as a result of Hurricane Harvey. I am sure Governor Scott in Florida feels the same way. I am sure Governor Brown out in California feels the same way. I am sure the Governors of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands feel the same way. What is wrong with Congress? Why can't they take up and pass an $81 billion disaster relief supplemental that the House sent the Senate in December? Last August, Hurricane Harvey devastated 28,000 square miles on the Texas coast. It has been called the most extreme rain event in history, certainly in the history of the United States. Highways were flooded. Thousands of homes were gutted. Places like Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Houston have not returned to normal. Routines are disrupted, shops and businesses remain closed, and houses are being renovated or rebuilt. But because of the size and the scope of the devastation, it is hard to get building supplies and it is hard to get the workers to rebuild these damaged homes and businesses. In Rockport, where I visited over Thanksgiving, Harvey made landfall with 150-mile-per-hour winds and a 13-foot storm surge. As of the end of December, 284 families were reported to still lack permanent housing. Some people are even living in tents. Rockport Mayor C.J. Wax said that 70 percent of businesses in Rockport remain closed--70 percent. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, one-third of Rockport is so badly damaged that it will be impossible to rebuild. Think about that. Think if this hit your hometown. One-third of your hometown is so badly damaged by a natural disaster that it will not be rebuilt, and 70 percent of the businesses in your hometown are closed and haven't reopened. Think of how you would feel. Over in Nueces County, meanwhile, which includes Corpus Christi and Port Aransas, officials have been frustrated because they haven't received the temporary housing assistance they need. Although FEMA--the Federal Emergency Management Agency--continues to marshal the full extent of its resources to help some people, for various reasons, many people are still living in motels and, as I said, even tents. This is completely unacceptable in the United States of America, especially while the House of Representatives has acted to produce a disaster relief bill, but it has been held hostage here in the Senate. This isn't a Democratic issue or a Republican issue; this is something we should be clamoring to solve--and not only clamoring, we should be acting to vote on that disaster relief today. Stories like these are why we need to move additional funds for disaster relief without delay. It is not just Texas, as I said, it is Floridians, Puerto Ricans, and people who live in the Virgin Islands and the wildfire-ravaged parts of California as well. The Senate has been dragging its feet long enough, and the longer we wait, the more people forget. I remember when the President and Mrs. Trump, along with the President's entire Cabinet, came down to Texas after Hurricane Harvey. The Speaker of the House, the majority leader of the House, and leaders on both sides of the aisle came down to Texas and said: We want to help. And the House has. The House passed an $81 billion disaster relief bill. But this unrelated immigration issue shut down the government. This is another one of the hostages that need to be released. June 1 is the beginning of hurricane season, and it is imperative that flood mitigation and storm surge protection projects begin without further delay. With support from Harris County, the city of Houston and members of the engineering community have identified the necessary projects, but we can't get started until we pass a disaster relief supplemental similar to the one the House passed in December. I talked to Mayor Turner of Houston, TX, one of the largest cities in the United States. He is beside himself, knowing that the House has passed this appropriation but that the Senate doesn't seem anywhere near to taking it up. It is hard for me to explain to him why the Senate has not acted. The simple fact is, this disaster relief should not be held hostage any longer. Amidst the disaster, I do want to mention one piece of good news on the hurricane front. I am glad that FEMA has responded to Members of Congress who asked that they accept applications for relief from nonprofits, like houses of worship, that were affected by Hurricane Harvey. This is a picture of one of the synagogues I attended in the Meyerland community in Houston, TX, which shows some of the devastation the synagogue there experienced. The rabbi asked me: Would you please go back to Washington and see whether, on a nonsectarian basis, you can get FEMA to expand its relief efforts to respond to houses of worship, many of which use or volunteer their facilities for community meetings and the like. So it is good to know that churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship will be able to get that sort of relief. This is the United Orthodox Synagogue that I visited after Harvey, where, as I mentioned, I saw this firsthand and had that discussion with the rabbi. The other issue we have to address is budget caps. This is another issue which has been held hostage by this unrelated immigration issue known as DACA, which everybody has heard so much about now. In conversations regarding the budget caps--these are the spending levels for this current fiscal year. The fiscal year of the U.S. Government lasts from October 1 to September 30, and we are already well into the fiscal year. We are in January. So we have already been on continuing resolutions because the spending caps have not been agreed to, and we all know why by now-- because our Democratic colleagues refuse to agree to the spending caps, so we can get a spending bill that funds the military and the rest of government, until they get a solution for the DACA issue. This is another hostage that has been taken. I am very worried about its impact on our military because we already know that our military is in dire straits when it comes to readiness, and they can't operate on a 3-week continuing resolution, which is the one we are on now. Even if the spending caps were agreed to today, it would take the Appropriations Committee a matter of additional weeks to come up with a bill we could vote on. As a result of the shutdown, the Democratic leader--who said he voted against the 4-week continuing resolution because he didn't like continuing resolutions--has guaranteed us at least two more continuing resolutions even if the spending caps were agreed upon in the next few days. This is terrible for the Pentagon, the people we depend upon to defend us and keep our country safe. This is an impossible situation for them to manage and to be as effective and efficient as we want them to be. The Defense Department has been operating under continuing resolutions for more than 36 months since 2010--36 months since 2010. By way of comparison, in the previous 8 years, the military was funded that way for less than 9 months. The consequences are clear, and they are deadly. Many of the mishaps that have involved our naval vessels, such as the McCain and the Fitzgerald, are the result of sailors spread thin, budgets spread thin, not enough training, and not enough preparation for the challenges they face. So these mishaps occur, and people die. The Wall Street Journal reports that only 5 of 58 brigade combat teams in the Army are prepared to fight. Only 5 out of 58 are prepared to fight. Now, I don't think our adversaries should take any comfort from that because I know Americans well enough to know that if there were an imminent threat, we would rise to the occasion and make sure that all 58 of them were prepared to fight, but right now, 5 out of 58. The U.S. Air Force, which provides the airpower, is short 2,000 pilots. Our military dominance across the globe is never guaranteed, and we know there are many signs that our military dominance is eroding. When American power erodes, when we retreat, either for policy or fiscal reasons, there are other people more than happy to fill the void. When that happens, the world becomes a more dangerous place, miscalculations occur, and conflict breaks out. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis put the matter succinctly last year when he said: ``For all of the heartache caused by the loss of troops during [our recent] wars, no enemy in the field has done more to harm the combat readiness of our military than sequestration.'' He might have said ``Congress'' because Congress is responsible for sequestration. Unfortunately, General Mattis is right. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who so bravely serve our country deserve all of the political and financial support we can muster. We need to quit fooling ourselves into believing that our security won't be negatively impacted by our current funding approach. We need to quit dawdling and raise the defense spending caps without further delay. It is dangerous not to do so, and lives have been lost as a result of the lack of readiness caused by underfunding our military. Yesterday when the Senate Democratic leader spoke, he said that common sense and bipartisanship won and the government reopened. As conversations addressing spending caps and disaster relief continue, we need to make sure that those two things continue to prevail--common sense and bipartisanship--particularly when it comes to funding our military and other critical government functions, and to make sure they are no longer held hostage to an unrelated immigration issue that we are working on as hard as we know how to do. We understand the clock is ticking, and both political parties are demonstrating their good faith in working to solve that problem. So let's let these other hostages go.