John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on a final matter, today marks a solemn anniversary for our country. Twenty years ago today, the Space Shuttle Columbia was making its return to Earth on the heels of a mission dubbed STS-107. After 16 days in orbit, the shuttle was bound for Kennedy Space Center in Florida, where members of the astronauts' families and countless spectators gathered to watch its landing, which is always an exciting and inspiring sight. The shuttle was traveling across the southern part of the United States, and as it crossed Texas on a beautiful Saturday morning, something terrible happened. Folks along the flight path stood in their yards, excited to watch a glimpse of Columbia returning from its 28th mission. They watched the orbiter streak across the sky at some 12,000 miles an hour, when, suddenly, they heard a loud noise and saw the shuttle begin to come apart. We soon realized that the worst had happened: The shuttle broke into several pieces as it reentered Earth's atmosphere, and all seven astronauts aboard lost their lives. The crew of Columbia included two Texans: Rick Husband and Willie McCool, along with Michael Anderson, Kalpana Chawla, David Brown, Laurel Clark, and Ilan Ramon. They were scheduled to land at Kennedy Space Center just 15 minutes after passing over Texas. The disaster left a field of wreckage that stretched from Fort Worth, across East Texas, and into Louisiana. Texas is a big place, but that means virtually the whole breadth of our State was covered with wreckage. The government, of course, immediately launched a massive search to recover pieces of the space shuttle in order to determine what went wrong. NASA officials, National Guard troops, and law enforcement at all levels began scouring the landscape to recover pieces of the shuttle. Divers from the Environmental Protection Agency led efforts to recover pieces that fell into the Toledo Bend Reservoir near Hemphill. Some 25,000 volunteers from Texas and Louisiana helped search an area that covered 2.3 million acres. They ranged from college students at nearby Stephen F. Austin to teams of ham radio operators who helped law enforcement with communications. As Texans and Americans do, people from all walks of life came together at a time of tragedy and rallied behind a unified effort to help bring answers to a nation in mourning. This tragedy happened just a couple of months into my first Senate term, and I witnessed this massive response effort in action. In the aftermath, I visited an area in Nacogdoches, which is over in East Texas, where tents were set up by search teams. It was remarkable to see the dedication of men and women firsthand engaged in this effort. Search crews battled the rain and cold temperatures as they combed through pine forests and underbrush searching for wreckage. Recovery teams and volunteers found everything from a 600-pound piece of a main engine to the sole of a spacesuit boot. These discoveries, of course, were crucial to the investigation, which helped NASA understand what went wrong and how we could prevent similar accidents from occurring in the future. In the months and years since, the Agency underwent an extensive transformation of its culture and operations to improve the safety of future missions. Jon Clark, a former NASA flight surgeon, whose wife Laurel was killed on Columbia said: Their sacrifice has evolved into a safer space program. Those changes are no consolation for the families who lost loved ones 20 years ago today, but I hope they can find some comfort in the knowledge that these American heroes made a lasting impact on America's space program. I appreciate the Texans who came together in the wake of this tragedy to preserve pieces of Columbia and provide NASA and these families with answers that they so earnestly sought. Their efforts, then and now, have helped make the Nation's space program safer and more successful. As we mark the 20th anniversary of the loss of Columbia, I am proud to cosponsor a Senate resolution to commemorate the loss of Columbia and honor its crew. I appreciate the bipartisan support of Senators on both sides of the aisle who have joined in this effort, and I hope the resolution will pass unanimously today. Today, we pay tribute to seven courageous individuals who lost their lives aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia. We remember, we honor, and we celebrate their commitment to research, exploration, and the pursuit of the extraordinary. We honor their legacy by continuing to push the boundaries of scientific discovery and human space. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the past few days, we have seen a number of headlines with surprising announcements about the impact the Biden administration's new border policies have had. Reuters, for example, ran a story last week titled ``U.S. arrests of Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan and Venezuelan migrants plummet.'' Dallas Morning News had a story titled ``Biden administration says illegal border crossings already falling under new policies.'' The Wall Street Journal ran a story over the weekend with the headline ``Migrant Arrests Fell by Roughly Half in January After New Enforcement Measures.'' Well, by reading those headlines alone, you might assume that the administration had finally done something it has refused to do over the last 2 years, and that is to take action to address the migration crisis, the humanitarian and public safety crisis that has been occurring at our southern border. You might think that they started using authorities they already had under existing law to enforce those laws at the southern border and deter would-be migrants from making the dangerous journey north. Well, if you made those assumptions, you would be wrong. That is not the case at all. As we know, the border has been operating at a state of crisis for at least the last 2 years. Last year alone, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 2.4 million migrants, completely shattering previous records. Last month, we broke the record for monthly encounters. The Agency logged more than a quarter of a million--more than 250,000--border crossings in December alone. Here is the ugly little secret that the Biden administration so far has failed to acknowledge: Vice President Kamala Harris talks about going to Central America, talks about root causes of the migration crisis, and Secretary Blinken talks about root causes, assuming that this is a regional matter affecting Mexico and Central America and that it is primarily people who are coming to the United States strictly for economic reasons or to flee violence. But the fact of the matter is, people are coming from all over the world to our doorstep and seeking asylum. A couple of weeks ago, we had a bipartisan congressional trip to El Paso, an urban area. We then went to Yuma, AZ, which is a sleepy little agricultural community right there along the border of Arizona and California. The acting Border Patrol chief told us that they had people from 176 countries, speaking 200 languages, seeking asylum, coming to the Yuma port of entry. You might ask, how in the world is that possible? That doesn't sound like root causes; that sounds like a global network of human struggling that is exploiting our asylum laws to gain entry into the United States. Well, Senator Mark Kelly from Arizona, who was with us, said: Well, Mexicali, which is a relatively large city in northern Mexico, just across the border from Yuma, has an airport, and presumably people are flying into Mexicali from disparate places around the world because they know that if they show up at this port of entry in Yuma, they are likely to gain entry into the United States by claiming asylum, and they know that because of the backlog in asylum cases, their case is not likely to be heard for literally years and that if they did ultimately appear in front of an immigration judge, their chances of successfully gaining asylum, according to the legal standard under American law, was about 10 percent. So it doesn't surprise anybody that many of them don't show up for their court hearing but simply hope to evade detection and be able to permanently settle in the United States. This is what the Border Patrol calls ``no consequences'' associated with illegal immigration. What they have told me and anybody else who will listen is that if there are no consequences to coming to the United States and exploiting our asylum system or illegally coming to the United States, then people are going to keep coming. Indeed, that is what we have seen with an absolute lack of deterrence because of nonenforcement and because of the Biden administration border policies. People all over the world are taking advantage of the Biden administration's weak policies. They are crossing our southern border at an alarming rate, imposing huge burdens on the border communities in States like mine, like Texas, that do not have the resources to meet the demands of this crisis. It wasn't that long ago that Del Rio, TX, a small community of 35,000 people, had 15,000 Haitians arrive in their city and claim asylum. As it turned out, many of those Haitians had been living in South America, having fled Haiti previously, but they had been living more or less peacefully in South America. But because they saw an opportunity to come to the United States and exploit this same asylum system, they showed up in Del Rio, TX--35,000 people--15,000 of them, overwhelming the capacity of that small city to deal with them. Until recently, the administration saw two options when it came to migrants. Option No. 1 was to use the authority granted under title 42 to expel these individuals to Mexico. Of course, title 42 is a public health title that has been in place because of COVID. Option No. 2 was to parole them. Basically, that means to grant them permission to enter the United States, where they would await immigration court proceedings, which, as I said, because of the backlog, because of the sheer volume, will take years. Under the administration's so-called new plan, there is now another option for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. So that is four countries. There is a new option for people coming from those four countries. It apparently doesn't apply to the other 172 countries that the Yuma Border Patrol chief has said that they have encountered. But under the administration's new plan, there is an option for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans that will allow them to remain in the United States legally for 2 years and receive work authorization. What more of a magnet do you need for people to come to the United States than to give them a work permit and to say: You can stay here legally for 2 years while you await your court proceeding. All they have to do is submit information online before crossing the border and wait for the administration to give them the green light. Well, the Border Patrol, in educating me and others about what is happening at the border, they talk about push factors and they talk about pull factors. The push factors, we all understand. That is poverty, violence, people wanting a better life. We don't begrudge people who want a better life, want a piece of the American dream, but we do--we should--insist they come to the country through legal means, not illegal means, not exploiting vulnerabilities in our asylum system. But there is no greater pull factor than this idea that there will be no consequences to coming to the United States, that you will successfully make your way into the United States, into the interior, and you will be able to stay. That is the ultimate pull factor, and that is the reason there is zero deterrence under President Biden's open border policies. Apparently he wants to continue that when it comes to people coming from these four countries. Well, there are several problems with this plan that I alluded to. First of all, it is not a solution to the open border policies that currently exist. It doesn't discourage migrants from making the long, dangerous journey; it just artificially lowers the numbers. Here is what I mean by that. Before this so-called new policy, if a migrant from one of these four countries was apprehended at the border, they would be encountered by the Border Patrol and either removed under title 42, repatriated, or paroled into the country. Every month, Customs and Border Protection reports a total number of migrants released into the United States, giving us an understanding of just how big, what the magnitude of this crisis truly is. Last month, for example, more than 130,000 migrants were paroled into the United States. One hundred thirty thousand were given the paperwork to move into the United States. The administration has taken a lot of heat for the fact that it is engaging in catch-and-release at an unprecedented pace. Basically, what that means is that rather than being detained while your asylum status is determined--and, as I said, the vast majority will not ultimately qualify if they appear in front of an immigration judge--catch-and- release just makes this worse. Rather than stop the practice and actually detain and remove migrants without legitimate asylum claims, the Biden administration came up with this new policy to, in effect, cook the books. The 30,000 migrants a month who enter the United States as part of this new program won't even be included in the monthly statistics that have become a huge political albatross for President Biden. If migrants enter the United States on a legal basis, which is exactly what this program provides, they will never be tallied as part of the migration crisis. They have taken 30,000 people and said: OK, we are going to make your entry into the country legal--so, by definition, it is no longer illegal immigration--by a wave of the magic wand. In short, this new policy lets the administration roll out the welcome mat for tens of thousands of migrants while making it seem like the numbers have actually gone down, which they have not. Problem No. 2 is that any progress is all but guaranteed to be temporary. According to the administration, we have seen a 97-percent drop in the number of illegal crossings for migrants from these four countries, and, as I said, these are just 4 of the 176 countries represented by the folks who show up at the one Yuma Border Patrol crossing currently. So it is just four countries. It appears, now, that there are thousands of migrants who would have previously arrived at the border who are now waiting for the Biden administration to approve their online application. But what happens after those 30,000 spots are filled? What happens when it takes months rather than weeks for migrants to receive the green light? I can tell you exactly what will happen. Migrants from these four countries will start coming across the border illegally once again. Will they be expelled under title 42? Will they be paroled into the interior? Only time will tell. But one thing is for sure. Once the line gets too long, we will be right back where we started, only with an added challenge: There will be a new population of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people living and working in the United States on what is supposed to be a temporary basis. As Ronald Reagan once noted, there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. Third, the new program normalizes migrants coming to the United States based on facts that would not qualify them under our current laws for asylum. The administration's description of urgent humanitarian reasons that would qualify a Haitian migrant for the program, for example, points to gang violence, the aftermath of an earthquake or a cholera breakout that worsened political, economic, and social conditions. Now, we can all agree that these are terrible conditions, but they don't meet the standard for a valid asylum claim. That leads to perhaps the biggest problem of all: that the administration circumvented--did an end run--around Congress to implement this policy, which has basically teed up an even bigger headache. President Biden is following in the footsteps of President Obama by creating a new category of immigrants without consulting with or getting the agreement of Congress. As we saw with President Obama and the deferred action for childhood arrivals, his use of Executive action 10 years ago has now created more problems for this population of young people who came here as children and who are now adults because the courts have so far said that President Obama didn't have the authority to do what he purported to do. By the way, if you go back and do an internet search and see what President Obama said shortly before he granted this deferred action for childhood arrivals, I think he said, perhaps as many as 17 times--I could be off a little bit--that he did not have the authority. He said he did not have the authority to do what he ultimately did, and, unfortunately, now the courts are agreeing with him, putting the livelihood and future of these young people in jeopardy. It has been more than a decade since DACA was established, and the fate of these young people is still being litigated in court. It is a terrible circumstance to find themselves in, and this won't be any different. The Biden policies will allow migrants to live and work in the United States for 2 years, and then what? Well, will they leave voluntarily? I doubt it. Will they be apprehended and removed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement? No, I doubt that. Or will this be another group of migrants who will live in the shadows? There is no question that our immigration system is broken. I have yet to find a person--a responsible person--who thinks our immigration system is working the way it should. It is big, it is outdated, it is inefficient, and it is not serving our Nation's interests well. But if the President wants to undertake immigration reform, as he says he does, this is not the way to go. By end-running Congress to try to establish new categories of immigrants, he is poisoning the well. He is making it harder for us to do what many of us would like to do, and that is to take on the monumental task of securing the border and creating a legal immigration system that serves our Nation's interests and one that we can be proud of. But, by poisoning the well, the President is not gaining new allies. He is just ensuring that more people will resist any potential legislation that we might take up soon. So despite what the initial data may suggest, what the spin doctors here in Washington have been selling to the news media, which has gullibly been accepting that, as if this is somehow a big deal for a negative trend in terms of illegal immigration, it is not so. The President hasn't solved the problem. He has just swept it under the rug, and he has, arguably, made it worse. This crisis is complex, but the solution isn't. The administration needs to engage with Congress and enforce our immigration laws that are on the books and those that are being exploited by the international criminal networks that are smuggling people into the United States on a daily basis. We need to work together to address those gaps that are being exploited. If migrants from any country see that the United States is quickly detaining and removing people who do not have a legal basis to remain in our country, the flow of illegal immigration will drop dramatically. That is the only viable path forward and where the administration should focus its time and effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, on another matter, last Friday I was in Austin, my home, and had the opportunity to speak at a conference that included some of the leading experts in all things dealing with declassification and government transparency. It was cohosted by a number of academic institutions in Texas and the Public Interest Declassification Board, or PIDB. Most of us had never heard of this group before, but the PIDB leads incredible work to help advise the President and the executive branch on ways to modernize the classification and declassification processes which safeguard our national security but also protect public trust in our institutions. I joined an onstage conversation with my friend Will Inboden, who leads the Clements Center for National Security at the University of Texas at Austin. We talked about the circumstances under which classification is important. Controlling access to certain sensitive information enables the United States to remain at least one step ahead of our adversaries. It also protects sources and methods that allow us to collect clandestine intelligence and protect the lives of those intelligence professionals who are engaged in collecting that information, as well as the avenues into those sources that are important to collecting this intelligence. Obviously, we don't want to jeopardize either the individuals involved or dissuade anyone from wanting to work with us in the future or to allow some of our access to dry up because it then becomes a matter of public knowledge. But we know classification is not always the right answer. There are many circumstances in which declassification safeguards our national security. One example is the way in which the United States Government declassified and shared information with our allies in the run-up to Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine. The decision to declassify some important intelligence gave Ukraine enough battlefield awareness to push back after the initial attack and save countless lives. It also unified Western response, leading to quick condemnation of Russia's attack and resources for Ukrainian forces. Declassification is an important tool with which we share information with our friends and allies around the world, but it is also another way to show the American people what their government is doing. It builds trust and transparency. It inspires confidence in the incredible work that our intelligence professionals are doing, and it equips scholars with the information they need to conduct academic research that informs decision making. Obviously, there is a very delicate balance between transparency, which drives democratic self-governance, and secrecy, which is sometimes necessary to protect sources and methods of information that are important to protect our national security. Policymakers and scholars have long debated this balance, but it doesn't often garner much attention in the public square. At least that was the case until recently. Over the last several months, law enforcement have uncovered classified documents in unsecured locations. For example, documents were discovered at President Trump's home in Florida. They were uncovered at President Biden's home in Delaware and in his private office in Washington, DC. And they were found at the home of former Vice President Pence in Indiana. All of these discoveries paint a deeply concerning picture, because those of us with access to classified information know that the only appropriate place to view classified information is in a secure setting. Now, we have no idea--we, as Congress--no idea what these classified documents contain. We don't know who had access to them. We have no insight into the possible ramifications for national security. So there are a lot of unanswered questions that need answers. This really addresses Congress's unique role, as a coequal branch of government, to provide oversight of the Federal Government. As elected representatives, we have the duty to our constituents and to our country to ensure their government is working for them, and oversight of the intelligence community is a big part of that job, and it is part of the system of checks and balances. Now, in most cases, oversight happens out in the open at congressional hearings, but this is, obviously, a different sort of case. We are talking about classified documents that were never meant for public consumption. That is why we have the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that I serve on and the House Committee on Intelligence, both of which were created after the Church Committee made recommendations about oversight that needed to be put in place over the intelligence community--both the police, the community itself, to make sure that those tools were not abused, but also to restore public confidence that that oversight was occurring and that abuses were not occurring at the same time. The Senate Intelligence Committee is one of the most bipartisan on Capitol Hill, and I credit our leadership for keeping us above the political fray. Chairman Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, and Vice Chairman Rubio, a Republican from Florida, operate arm in arm to lead the kind of oversight that I believe helps instill confidence in the intelligence community and in our intelligence professionals. The committee has a responsibility to examine the facts of these cases and understand the potential risk it could create for national security. Unfortunately, in a hearing we had with the Director of National Intelligence, we seem to have hit a brick wall, at least initially. Despite the high profile nature of these discoveries, the Biden administration will not allow Congress to perform its constitutional oversight duties. Back in August, Senator Warner and Senator Rubio sent a letter to the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General requesting the classified documents that were seized at Mar-a-Lago. Members of the Intelligence Committee are accustomed to reviewing, handling, and protecting classified information. It is something we do on virtually a daily basis. This document request was not to make this public. This was a request for committee members to review the documents in a classified setting. The administration refused. In the months since, classified documents have been discovered at more locations, and, again, the administration has refused to provide access to this intelligence. The Justice Department, as we know, has appointed special counsel to oversee two of these probes, but yet they refuse to share the documents or any information about them. Now, it is one thing in an investigation conducted by law enforcement to say: We are going to protect the person being investigated, and we are going to protect the integrity of the investigation by not making that public. We understand that, but this is something far different. When a current and former President of the United States and a former Vice President of the United States have classified documents in unsecured settings, we need to know who had access to it, what the intelligence reports contain, not because we are curious or we want to interfere with an investigation by the Justice Department but because we have an independent constitutional responsibility to protect the national security of the United States and to protect the intelligence community from unjustified criticism. Several years ago, the Intelligence Committee investigated Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. This was a case like now, where special counsel was appointed, but Congress did not have to wait. It wasn't forced to wait for that inquiry to be completed by former FBI Director Mueller. Those investigations happened concurrently. The special counsel's investigation happened at the same time as the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation occurred. These investigations-- both that of the Intelligence Committee and that of the Department of Justice--should happen concurrently now as well. As I said last week, the Director of National Intelligence, Director Haines, testified before the Intelligence Committee. I was eager to learn more in a secure setting, protected from public dissemination, what was going on with these documents, what they meant, and who produced them. Were they stale or were they current intelligence? What sort of access did our adversaries have to them, and what did they learn if they did get access to them that we need to know about and prepare for? I don't think any of our colleagues expected a full analysis of these documents, but I was alarmed by the complete lack of transparency by the Director of National Intelligence to the oversight committees in Congress like the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Without going into detail, Director Haines essentially said that once the Department of Justice initiated its investigation, her office stood down and did not inquire any further as to what these documents contained. So far, the Department of Justice refuses to share details of these intelligence products that were discovered at these unsecured locations. As I said, we have no idea what is in these documents, who could have seen them, or how big of a risk it creates for national security, but we do need the answers to those questions that only a review in a classified setting in a secure facility by the oversight committees--we need the answers that only that sort of inquiry will reveal. We could have a major national security risk on our hands or it could be a nothing burger, but the Department needs to be expedient and fully transparent in sharing this information with Congress and the intelligence community, again, in a classified secure setting, not for public dissemination. If you worry about leaks, which are rampant here in Washington, DC, I must say, the record of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is pretty darn good when it comes to no leaks. Senator Rubio and Senator Warner have been clear that the Department of Justice will not stonewall Congress. This is not a partisan matter. It is not tenable for the position of the Department of Justice and for the Biden administration to take that position. As policymakers with an independent constitutional responsibility, we need to know the full details so we can conduct the risk assessment and determine how best to respond. President Biden's Department of Justice cannot stand in the way of Congress's constitutional oversight role. Now, many in the press have said: Well, what sort of things might the Senators on the Intelligence Committee do to compel the cooperation of the Department of Justice? Well, I hope we don't have to go there. I hope this produces a negotiation that will address the concerns both of the Department of Justice and of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. It is well known what sort of tools are available to Congress--things like appropriations, things like nominations--but I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that. But we have a job to do, and we are going to do it, with the cooperation of the Biden administration or without their cooperation. So all options are on the table to ensure not that we get to see what we want to see for political or other inappropriate reasons but to make sure our national security is not at risk. Again, this is a bipartisan desire to see these documents and evaluate the risk they could pose to our security. It is time for the administration to cooperate with us in that effort. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the killing of Tyre Nichols has reignited a national debate about the excessive use of force by police, and rightfully so. This unarmed 29-year-old was brutally beaten by Memphis police officers with an egregious, excessive use of force. Within the Republican conference, Senator Tim Scott from South Carolina has been our leader on police reform matters, and I have been proud to work with him on bills to help improve policing in our communities and public safety. One of those bills was the Law Enforcement De-Escalation Training Act, which, by the way, was just signed into law last month. This new law will ensure that all police officers have the opportunity to acquire skills to defuse a potentially dangerous situation like the one we saw in Memphis. Use of force should only come into play when absolutely necessary, and this legislation will provide law enforcement officers with the knowledge of what alternatives are available to them, which invariably will make their lives better and safer and also protect the life of the individual who is being detained. This has the potential to save lives and prevent another senseless and entirely preventable tragedy like this from reoccurring. I am glad this legislation is now the law of the land, and the Department of Justice must implement it as quickly as possible.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on February 4, 2023, the tight-knit community in Cass County, TX, will gather to solemnly honor the 50th annual remembrance of the end of the Vietnam war and pay tribute to one of its heroes, U.S. Air Force Sergeant John O'Neal Rucker. Sergeant Rucker grew up in Linden, a town nestled deep in the heart of the piney woods of east Texas. After graduating high school, he answered the call to serve in the Armed Forces and volunteered for the U.S. Air Force. During his basic training at Lackland Air Force Base, Sergeant Rucker volunteered for assignment in Southeast Asia. According to the AC-119 Gunship Association, Sergeant Rucker was initially directed to Nakhon Phanom, Thailand, in April 1972. In July of that year, he took a temporary duty assignment to Da Nang, Vietnam, with the 18th Special Operations Squadron. After spending leave at home in Linden over Christmas 1972, Sergeant Rucker returned to Vietnam with the anticipation that his time on the battlefield would soon come to an end, as the war appeared to be winding down. On January 27, 1973, the 21-year-old Sergeant Rucker was off-duty and asleep in his barracks when rockets struck Da Nang Air Base, instantly taking his life just hours before the Paris Peace Accords took effect, finally ending the Vietnam war. Sergeant Rucker is remembered as one of the last American servicemembers who paid the ultimate sacrifice in Vietnam. Shortly after his death, a marble plaque to honor Sergeant John O'Neal Rucker was unveiled at Da Nang Air Base in March 1973. Thousands of miles away, his hometown of Linden dedicated a monument to him in November 1973 outside of the Cass County courthouse. Today, Sergeant Rucker's life and legacy remain forever engraved in the hearts and minds of his family, friends, and community. Texas is home to generations of servicemembers and veterans who have defended our freedoms at home and abroad. Our Nation's rich history has been strengthened by the dutiful service and sacrifice of our courageous military women and men, and we owe them our deepest respect and greatest appreciation. May God bless Sergeant John O'Neal Rucker, all of our fallen servicemembers, and their families.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, January is National Human Trafficking Prevention Month, and it is a great opportunity to improve awareness about the scourge of human trafficking and redouble our efforts to end it. Throughout my career, I have worked with law enforcement, nonprofits, and advocates of all stripes to try to crack down on human trafficking and strengthen support for human trafficking survivors. These experts have helped me identify steps that we together can take in Congress to end modern slavery. I am proud that one of those bills was signed into law earlier this month. The Abolish Trafficking Reauthorization Act, which I introduced with Senator Klobuchar, the Senator from Minnesota, is officially the law of the land. This law extends critical support to survivors of human trafficking, provides resources for law, funds prevention research, and promotes increased reporting to prevent human trafficking. It is a step in the right direction in our fight to end modern slavery, and I was glad to discuss the importance of this law with advocates and experts in Texas just a couple of weeks ago. On January 11, National Human Trafficking Awareness Day, I had the pleasure of sitting down with some remarkable people in Dallas who are leading the fight. We gathered at the Letot Residential Treatment Center, which provides a full range of services to human trafficking survivors, specifically girls between the age of 13 and 17. Letot offers safe shelter, which I have learned is perhaps the most important thing, a safe place for these survivors to actually live. But it also provides education, job training, and mental healthcare to these young victims to help them find a clear path forward one day at a time. I had visited the same facility a few years ago to learn about the work they do, and I was encouraged to note their continued impact in Dallas County, one of our largest counties in Texas. I also learned about the dedicated work of New Friends New Life, which helps exploited girls, women, and their children to rebuild their lives and to move forward toward a brighter future. The organization also promotes a men's advocacy group, which raises awareness and mobilizes men to take action against sex trafficking and exploitation. In addition to learning more about the impact of these organizations, I was able to hear from local law enforcement, including Dallas District Attorney John Creuzot. John noted that Texas is No. 2 in the Nation when it comes to human trafficking and added that Dallas is a major hotspot because it is at the crossroads of so many interstate freeways. Rescuing victims of human trafficking, disrupting trafficking operations, and pursuing justice is a major focus for law enforcement. For sex trafficking in particular, they are working with groups like Traffick911 to free young people from this terrible life. I am blown away by the incredible work being done in North Texas to support survivors and ensure justice is served. What I heard from these survivors really underscored how critical these efforts are. One of the women I heard from was Dr. Tanya Stafford, an inspiring and passionate advocate for survivors of human trafficking. Tanya told us she was only 13 when her mother sold her to a man for drugs. You heard that right. When she was 13 years old, her own mother sold her to a man for drugs. Then, for 10 years, she was hidden in plain sight until, finally, a neighbor intervened. As Tanya put it, ``she saw something, she said something, and she did something.'' Every single day, concerned neighbors and friends call tip lines and help victims like Tanya escape from human trafficking. Incredible organizations like Letot Residential Treatment Center and New Friends New Life help these victims of human trafficking rebuild their lives. Law enforcement and groups like Traffick911 help to free victims from human trafficking. The brave survivors are what have impressed me most of all. To have these survivors talk about their own personal story, with all of the potential for embarrassment that suggests, speaks to me to the courage of these survivors, who are willing to use their own personal example to help save others from a similar fate. It was inspiring to hear them talk about overcoming the incredible trauma and adversity. Their stories are a reminder of why it is so important for us to continue this fight, and that includes everything from awareness and education to legislating here in Congress. There is no better time than Human Trafficking Prevention Month to build on these efforts. I want to thank the experts, the advocates, and the survivors, as well as all of our Senate and congressional colleagues who are leading on this fight. Respect for Child Survivors Act Madam President, the day after my conversation in Dallas, I traveled to Houston, another one of our major metropolitan areas, to discuss a new law that will have a big impact on child sexual abuse victims. The seed for this legislation was first planted in September 2021, when the Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on the repeated failures of the FBI's investigation into the Larry Nassar case. U.S. gymnasts delivered powerful testimony about the FBI's mishandling of their investigation and inspired a bipartisan push to fix the broken process that failed them and countless other victims. Again, Senator Klobuchar and I worked with law enforcement, victims' rights groups, and all our colleagues here in the Senate to identify reforms that would actually make a difference. Those discussions eventually led to the Respect for Child Survivors Act, which was signed into law earlier this month. This law mandates the use of multiple disciplinary teams, or MDTs, in FBI interviews with child victims. Just by way of footnote, most of these kinds of cases are investigated at the local or State level, and, frankly, most local level law enforcement have worked with the child advocacy centers around Texas and around the country to try to minimize the repetition of the trauma on these child victims and to help preserve testimony needed to convict their abuser. But the FBI has a much bigger portfolio and, generally, is not trained in how to deal with these victims of sexual assault, particularly child victims. Now this new law mandates training for the FBI. These MDTs, the multiple disciplinary teams, that they will now work with, include mental health and medical professionals, caseworkers, and other individuals who advocate for a child's well-being. The primary goal, of course, is to protect these young victims and ensure that they are not retraumatized during the investigation, which is going to be intrusive by its very nature. There is a mountain of evidence, thank goodness, that this approach actually works. During the discussion in Houston, I sat down with a full range of experts on this topic at the Children's Assessment Center, which is a pioneer in the successful use of MDTs. For more than 30 years, it has cared for sexually abused children and, in the process, established the gold standard for the right way to protect victims of child sexual abuse. The folks I spoke with and listened to that day stressed the importance of this approach. For example, Houston Police Lieutenant John Colburn said that the partnership between law enforcement and the Children's Assessment Center makes a ``tremendous difference.'' He said that children are able to share their experiences in a more comfortable way, and law enforcement can take peace in the knowledge that these incredibly difficult conversations are happening with trauma-informed experts who are equipped to handle them properly. That is why this legislation is important. One of the individuals we heard from was Rebecca Whitehurst, a former U.S.A. gymnast and one of the hundreds of survivors of the Larry Nassar episode. She said: It is deeply gratifying to know that you have listened to our voices and learned from our experience to ensure that systems improve and that justice is served. Rebecca concluded her comments by saying: Children should be totally protected from those who [would] harm them, and those who [would] fail them should be held accountable. I couldn't say it better myself. With this new law on the books, I am confident that the FBI will be better prepared to handle similar investigations in the future with compassion and efficiency and ultimately bring perpetrators to justice. This was all possible because of the brave gymnasts who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee a year and a half ago. They showed tremendous courage by speaking out, by talking about personal, intimate matters that were necessarily embarrassing to them, but they overcame that, knowing that they could well make a difference for some future gymnast or some other child sexual assault victim in the future. I hope they will take some comfort in knowing that their stories brought about this change. We need to ensure that the FBI's mistreatment of these victims and their reports is not repeated in the future, and this law will help make sure that goal is accomplished. Like so many of us--we learn from our constituents. We learn from men and women who take the time to share their experiences with us, and I am grateful to those who did so in Dallas and Houston and, again, especially the survivors. They are doing incredible work to root out human trafficking and support survivors and ensure that justice is served. I am proud of what we were able to accomplish last Congress to strengthen their efforts, but there is still more work for us to do. I appreciate all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol who have worked together on these efforts in the past, and I am eager to accomplish even more this Congress. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Now, Mr. President, to talk about what I came here to talk about--talk about the border. I live in a border State. We have 1,200 miles of border with Mexico. We have, as a country, 2,000 miles of border with Mexico. And we are seeing numbers of people showing up at the border that we have never seen before--millions of people since President Biden was sworn in as President on January 20, 2021, millions of people showing up, many of whom are claiming asylum and seeking to immigrate permanently into the United States under the asylum laws. Because the administration has a policy of releasing those individuals into the interior of the United States to await a future immigration court hearing, which may be years in the future because of backlog, many of those individuals do not show up at their immigration court hearing but simply are willing to play the odds that they can just melt into the Great American heartland and not be returned or repatriated to their country of origin or actually have to appear at an asylum hearing. We know that, statistically, the number of people who actually do show up for an asylum hearing in front of an immigration judge, only roughly 90 percent of them fail to meet the very stringent requirement for asylum, which is basically a credible fear of persecution based on some classification: race, sex, ethnic origin, or the like. That is a very narrow test, and it certainly does not include fear of poverty or even violence in your home country. Yet the policy of the Biden administration to basically create open borders and place individuals who show up and claim asylum--these are not people trying to run away from the Border Patrol, by the way. These are people who are turning themselves in because they know they can play the system, and they will be able to make their way into the United States without any consequences--certainly, no legal consequences. I am sure those of my colleagues who have visited the border--and we had a bipartisan group just a couple weeks ago who did visit again both Yuma, AZ, and El Paso. But as my colleagues can attest, there is no data, there is no image there, frankly, or no words to adequately convey the complexity of what is happening at the border today. To understand, you have to see and hear for yourself. Several years ago, I traveled to Brooks County, which is a little county in South Texas, where I visited a ranch that the Border Patrol had a rescue beacon in the middle of. And just to explain, the Border Patrol does a lot of humanitarian rescues because, as you can imagine, people coming from Central America, up across the land bridge into Mexico, up to the United States, many of them show up dehydrated, suffering from exposure, and some of them, frankly, die on the trip. But the Border Patrol, while they have the responsibility of enforcing our immigration laws at the border and interdicting illegal drugs, they also rescue migrants who are in distress. And what these rescue beacons are, out in the middle of nowhere, frankly--what they are are large poles with a light on top that allows migrants who are sick, injured, or otherwise in distress to contact law enforcement for help and immediately get access to first aid, water, food, whatever they need. There is a sign at the bottom of these rescue beacons that instructs the migrants to press a red button for help and to remain in the area. Well, when I first went to Brooks County, which is where this-- Falfurrias is probably the largest inland port where the Border Patrol has a checkpoint in Brooks County. I was surprised to see the rescue beacons not written in just English, not just written in Spanish but in Mandarin. Mandarin. This is Brooks County, TX, a rural county 70 or so miles from the U.S.-Mexico border, and the rescue beacon is in Chinese, the Chinese language. This is a factoid about the border crisis that doesn't get nearly the attention that it deserves. What this tells me and what I have learned subsequently is that migrants aren't just coming from Mexico. They are not just coming from Central America. They are literally coming from all around the world. Now, when I hear, for example, Vice President Harris or the President of the United States or Secretary of State Blinken talk about the migration crisis, they want to talk about root causes. And I think, although that is a little bit vague, I think what they are talking about is they view migration as an economic crisis: people living in their home country who are seeking a better life, which we all certainly understand, or fleeing violence--they want to talk about root causes. But I think what they don't understand or certainly aren't articulating is the fact that this is far broader than a regional problem concentrated in Mexico and Central America. I think the fact that these rescue beacons have been, for many years, written in English, Spanish, and Mandarin is evidence of the fact that this is a far larger problem but one that the administration has simply not acknowledged. A couple of weeks ago, I traveled with a bipartisan delegation of colleagues to El Paso, TX, which is the westernmost point in my State. Actually, just a bit of trivia, the city of El Paso is closer to the Pacific Ocean than it is to the eastern tip of Texas, to give you an idea of the scope of what we are talking about. It is a big place. But we traveled to El Paso, TX, which is an urban area, but we also went to Yuma, AZ, which, if you look on the map, is the southwestern portion of Arizona, another border State, just right up against California. But it is an agricultural community. I think it is fair to say--I am not disparaging it--it is kind of a sleepy little agricultural town. We met a number of people in El Paso and Yuma whom I want to mention. In El Paso, we went out on a night patrol with the Border Patrol. They got on their horses, and they rode over this large area where there is a lot of traffic. And then we were informed that they had detained two migrants. And so we walked over there to sort of see what was going on, and the Border Patrol said: Well, these two are from China. El Paso, TX, two Chinese migrants trying to make their way across the border. As a matter of fact, one of the Border Patrol Agents had to use an app on the phone, I think it is called Google Translate, in order to communicate with these migrants. Then, when we went to one of the detention facilities or processing facilities, actually--not actually detention--we met a family from Uzbekistan while touring the Border Patrol Central Processing Center in El Paso--not in Mexico, not Central America, but Uzbekistan. You can look that up on the map. It is not a part of the region that the President, the Secretary of State, and Vice President are talking about when they are talking about root causes of illegal immigration. But when we went to Yuma, the little sleepy agricultural town on the border of Mexico and the United States, the Acting Border Patrol Chief told us that one of the unusual features of a number of the migrants who came across Yuma were they came from 176 different countries, and they spoke more than 200 languages. And you might ask: How in the world is that possible? Well, Senator Kelly, one of the Arizona Senators, said: Well, there is an airport right across the border in Mexico, at the northern border, in a city called Mexicali. Again, if you look at your map of Mexico, you will see that Mexicali is a pretty large urban area right there on the Arizona border. And people fly into there. Of course, they have to pay human smugglers, criminal organizations that are a network that smuggle human beings for money from anywhere in the world to that airport, and then they walk across or walk up to the Yuma Border Patrol and claim asylum. They noted that many of them are apparently well-to-do. Somebody mentioned Gucci luggage. I don't know whether Gucci makes luggage or not, but you get the idea. These are the not the sort of mental pictures that I think many people have of migrants who are seeking a better life, necessarily, fleeing poverty, I should say, or fleeing violence. So the reason I mention this is because the reality of what is happening on the ground along the border undercuts the rhetoric we hear from the administration about how to solve this problem. The White House has pushed a narrative that the only way to fix the border crisis is to fix the ``root causes'' of migration, meaning the economic and security concerns that cause people to come here. It has honed in on the Northern Triangle, including El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, as the primary region of concern. The administration's border czar, Vice President Harris, even led the development of the ``root causes strategy.'' The problem is the data shows that this is not the region driving illegal migration. Last month, Customs and Border Protection encountered more than a quarter of a million migrants at the southern border. Fewer than 33,000 of those 250,000 were from Northern Triangle countries--33,000 out of the 250,000 were from Northern Triangle countries. So these are the three countries that the administration is focused on. It reminds me of the story of people who look through a soda straw at a problem. Well, they can look down the soda straw, and they can see what is happening there, but they don't see what is happening around it, and they lose any sense of context or the complete picture. That is what the administration is doing when they are looking at the border and the humanitarian and national security crisis occurring there on a daily basis and in my State's backyard. As a matter of fact, these three countries represent only about 13 percent of the migrants encountered at the southern border in December. Mexican nationals, the large country right on our southern border-- Mexico is not driving the numbers either. Only 19 percent of the border encounters in December were Mexican nationals. So where are all these men and women and children coming from? Well, you can take a global map, a map of the world, and you can take a dart and throw the dart at the map and you are likely to hit a place where these migrants are coming from. Last year, across the entire border, Customs and Border Protection encountered migrants from 174 different countries. People from every corner of the globe are traveling through Mexico and crossing America's southern border. There is no question that the conditions in Mexico and the Northern Triangle are contributing, but they are only a small fraction of the problem. People around the world see the Biden administration catching and releasing migrants by the thousands on a daily basis. They see the yearslong wait for asylum cases to be adjudicated. They see the lack of any interior enforcement by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and as they look at this picture, they realize that if they can make it across the southern border, they are likely to be able to stay in the United States for years, if not a lifetime. Despite what the administration may think, this is not just a regional problem; it is a global phenomenon, run by transnational criminal organizations. That ought to concern all of us. Last year, CBP encountered migrants from 174 different countries. If the administration wants to fix the ``root causes'' of this crisis, are they going to fix the world? You can see why their misconception, their misunderstanding, their erroneous narrative of what the problem is doesn't help solve the problem. It is time for the Biden administration to acknowledge the reality of the situation and look at solutions that are realistic and effective. In order to get this crisis under control, we have to move quickly on a bipartisan basis to insist on the enforcement of our immigration laws when people attempt to enter our country other than through legal means. That is the only viable path forward, and the sooner the administration understands that, the better off we will all be. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about the border one more time, but I was intrigued by the rhetorical questions my friend from Illinois has asked the Speaker. I have got a question for President Biden: When you say that you are not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling, does that mean that the Federal Government is going to continue to rack up more and more debt on top of the $30 trillion that we already owe, particularly during inflationary times when interest rates on that debt basically are eating up more and more of our discretionary budget? To me, if the answer is yes, I am going to refuse to negotiate as we continue to rack up more and more debt, about two-thirds of which is on autopilot, as the Presiding Officer knows--it is mandatory spending. That is a supremely irresponsible position to take. President Biden, when he was in the Senate, was known as a dealmaker, and as I said yesterday, during 2011, he negotiated with Senator McConnell the Budget Control Act, which was probably the most recent response, sort of a mixed bag as it was, to try to control Federal spending. It was a noble effort, although it did not succeed. So I know our friends on the Democratic side would like to sort of add to Mr. McCarthy's challenges. We have got 6 months, perhaps, between now and the time the extraordinary measures the Treasury Department is going to be using to make sure we don't actually breach that debt limit, but I would suggest that the time would be better used, rather than sort of to add gasoline to the fire, to actually try to solve the problem. And the problem--the debt limit--is real. It needs to be addressed by two people: Speaker McCarthy and the President of the United States. Because anything the Senate were to pass with 60 votes, which would be required, would certainly be dead on arrival in the House of Representatives. And so as a practical matter, while we are going to be very interested and engaged in the debate and discussion, that is where the decision is going to have to be made sometime between now and the time extraordinary measures are exhausted, perhaps as early as June. But in the meantime, for the President of the United States, who represents not just Democrats, who represents all Americans--all 330 million-plus of us--to say: I am not negotiating, even though he has got a track record as a Senator and as a Vice President of negotiating hard things like this, to me, is an irresponsible answer, and I hope he will reconsider.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we have seen this movie before. The Senate finds itself in familiar territory. The United States narrowly avoided hitting the debt ceiling over a year ago, but now we are staring down the barrel of another debt crisis. The United States hit the debt limit last Thursday, according to the Secretary of Treasury, and now the Treasury is using what they refer to, euphemistically, as ``extraordinary measures'' in order to prevent the government from defaulting on its debts. Unless the Congress takes action in the coming months, the American economy will be confronted with an unprecedented crisis. But here is what I find strange: Despite the fact that we are hurtling toward this disaster, the White House seems completely disinterested in finding a solution. President Biden has drawn a redline. He said: We are not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling. In other words, he expects Congress to raise the debt ceiling with no conditions attached and let this reckless runaway spending and outrageous debt continue to rise. Now, I don't want to disparage drunken sailors, but it seems to me that that is the model for how the White House is responding. It is as if you or I were spending beyond our means on our credit card, and then the issuer of the credit card said: You know, you are going to have to pay the money back at some point. And you say: To heck with that. I want you to raise my credit limit even higher, without any demonstrated means or plan to actually pay the money back. We know what would happen for you and me is the issuer of the credit card would cancel our credit card, as well it should, if we responded the way that the White House is responding. So apparently what the administration plans to continue to do is continue this spending bender. It can't cover the current bills--now it is roughly $30 trillion--and it expects somebody, anybody, maybe nobody, to pay the money back and to deal with this ever-growing national debt. We know this is an even bigger problem in inflationary times because the more money the Federal Government continues to spend, it is like throwing gasoline on inflation, and consumers have already experienced sky-high prices--some of the highest prices in 40 years--on everything from gasoline to food, to housing, and to the essentials of life. So why in the world does it make sense for the administration to say: We are not even going to talk; we are not even going to negotiate with the House when it comes to the debt ceiling. We are just going to keep spending as much money as we can, racking up more and more debt. I know that President Biden has children and grandchildren. Is he concerned for their welfare? We are writing checks that we are not going to have to pay back, Mr. President. You and I are at the age where this bird is not going to come home to roost in our lifetime, but it will in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren, including those of President Biden. So how responsible--or I should say how irresponsible--is it for the President to say: We are just going to keep on keeping on, and we are not even going to talk about what we need to do to deal with this mounting debt. We are not even going to entertain any reasonable ideas or suggestions about how we dig our way out of this hole. Well, the American people witnessed our Democratic colleagues' wasteful spending over the last 2 years and chose a new direction in the midterm elections that gave Republicans the House after 2 years in which our Democratic colleagues spent $1.9 trillion on the so-called American Rescue Plan and then another 700-or-so billion dollars on the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which, by the way, doesn't reduce inflation, but that is what it is called. In response, the voters gave Republicans the majority in the House. I can only imagine that part of that was a response to what they saw as a reckless spending binge that was going to continue without end if they maintained Democratic control of both Houses and the White House. So the new reality of divided government means there is only one path we can take to avoiding a debt bomb: Republicans and Democrats have to reach a compromise. I know the Presiding Officer believes that part of our responsibility is to negotiate and try to come up with common ground where we can and not simply to give the Heisman to one another and say we are not even going to talk. I don't know why we are here as Members of Congress or why you would want to be President of the United States when you would see such a big problem growing bigger by the day and say: Forget it. I am not talking. I am not going to try to solve the problem. That is somebody else's issue; that is not ours. I don't believe that is a responsible reaction, and I don't think most Members of Congress think it is a responsible reaction, but that is where we are today, but it needs to change. As we know, the reality of Republican control of the House means that the negotiation on the debt ceiling--and there has to be a negotiation--in reality, has to be between the House and the White House. Nothing we do here that would get 60 votes would pass the House, I believe. I think that is pretty clear. But in order to avoid a catastrophe, a bill not only has to pass the House, it needs to get 60 votes in the Senate and the President's signature. Those are the facts. Now, drawing unreasonable lines in the sand and issuing ultimatums do nothing to solve the problem. Instead of doling out marching orders, the President needs to do his job and listen to what is being proposed and to negotiate a solution. Nobody I know of thinks that breaching the debt ceiling is an acceptable outcome. If that is true, and I believe it is true, then there is only one alternative: try to work together to come up with some negotiated outcome that avoids breaching the debt ceiling but at the same time provides some answer to those people concerned--and I am one of them--about the ever-increasing debt and what high interest rates that are used to combat inflation are going to mean in terms of how much money we are going to have to pay to service that debt and where that will come--out of things like defense spending or other priorities. President Biden served as a Member of the Senate for many, many years, and he ran on the promise of continuing his same approach as a dealmaker as President of the United States. In fact, he pointed to his record in the Senate and as Vice President as proof of his ability to reach across the aisle and to strike a compromise. Now, I know in some quarters ``compromise'' is a dirty word these days, but there is no other way for us to function here because none of us is a dictator, none of us can say: This is the way it is and actually be able to accomplish what they seek. Instead, the President does have some record--a good record, in one instance--of doing exactly what he refuses to do today. As Vice President, Joe Biden helped negotiate the 2011 Budget Control Act, which was the last substantial and meaningful attempt to rein in wasteful Washington spending. At that point, our economy was still recovering from a recession caused by the financial crisis in 2008. Federal spending soared, revenues plummeted, and it was clear that something--something--had to be done to stave off an even bigger economic crisis. President Obama was in the White House, and Congress was divided; Democrats controlled the Senate, Republicans controlled the House in 2011. And as it turns out, then-Vice President Biden was a key negotiator. He helped broker the agreement, working principally with then-Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, to come up with a bill that passed with strong bipartisan support. So here we are, a dozen years later, and we find ourselves in a similar condition, without the solution. Our economy is recovering from an unprecedented pandemic. Federal spending has soared. A large part of that was roughly $5 trillion that Democrats and Republicans spent together because we saw no alternative but to try to respond to the COVID crisis in a way that addressed public health needs--like coming up with a vaccine--and helped sustain our economy during this crisis. But then the wheels came off the bipartisanship over the last 2 years, as I mentioned, with the ARP and the IRA, to use a couple of acronyms. But the American people have nowhere else to turn but here for to us address this problem. Now, I think it is easy to engage in the blame game, and we do it here all the time. In fact, here in Washington, DC, it is a world-class sport, but at some point you have got to quit pointing the finger and you have got to try to step up and roll up your sleeves and try to solve the immediate problem. I am not suggesting we can solve all of our problems or even do it permanently, but we can address this current crisis by doing what we are paid to do, what we are elected to do, what we took an oath to do, which is to represent our constituents to the best of our ability. So this is the time for President Biden to step up. He is President of the United States, and he has done it before when he was Vice President in 2011. All it would take to start this process is to invite the House, the Senate: Come. Sit around the table to discuss the problem and to try to listen to what potential solutions there might be, just as he promised to do on the campaign trail. So it is time for him to do what he promised to do all along and lead. Presidents can't be a spectator. They can't sit on the sidelines. Nobody in America expects a President of the United States to do that. And the fact is, the President is not just a leader of the Democratic Party. He is the elected leader of the United States of America--all 330-plus million of us. So taking a partisan position, knowing the challenges that the House is going to have dealing with a debt ceiling, and just sort of enjoying watching them struggle to deal with this is not an act of courage. It is not an act of leadership. We expect our Presidents to make tough decisions, just as we ourselves are expected to make tough decisions and to try to come up with solutions. I can't imagine any responsible person in the country, much less in Congress, who would take the position that a clean debt ceiling increase is the way to go. I mentioned that a moment ago. Who is going to pay the 30 trillion back we already owe? Is the idea that we can just continue to heap debt upon debt upon debt? Does anybody think that is a good idea? How, if we have another fiscal crisis like we had in 2008, would we be able to respond? How, if we had another pandemic, would we be able to respond with this debt handcuffing Congress when we need maximum flexibility to be able to respond? And I mentioned the interest rates that are higher than they have been in a long time, which continue to eat up more and more tax revenue just to service that debt to pay their bondholders on their investment. So this is not just a problem that can be punted. This does not call for partisan responses. This calls for statesmanship. It calls for leadership. And as part of this, we have to look at what got us in this condition in the first place. Why it is that we need to raise the debt ceiling. We know that America's debt crisis didn't appear overnight. It has been building for decades. And lest anybody believe that I am suggesting that this is strictly a Democratic problem, it has really been something that both political parties have contributed to over time. Somehow, we became anaesthetized or desensitized to the fact that we continue to spend borrowed money. It is true that we point to the various crises we have had, and we say, ``Well, we really didn't have any other choice.'' But now we do have a choice. We can respond to this responsibly and do our jobs. Well, we need to get out-of-control spending habits in check. No household, no city council, no county government, no State government could possibly do what the Federal Government is doing. They have to live with a balanced budget. They have to live within their means. I am not suggesting it is going to be easy--because it is not--but it is not optional. One of the most important things we can do as part of this response is to return to a regular appropriations process in funding the government each year. The idea that we can do this through an omnibus appropriations process, like we were forced to do last year in backing it up to December 23rd, right before Christmas, and threatening a shutdown, is not the right way to do business. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees have 12 separate bills to fund each of the different components of the Federal Government. These bills are supposed to pass both Chambers and be signed into law before the end of the fiscal year, which is September 30. That didn't happen in 2022 or 2021. The Democratic-led Senate did not pass a single appropriations bill, and I understand why. The majority leader Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi realized that delaying the appropriations process and not going through this regular order gave them immense power because they could decide what went into that omnibus bill. They could say yes to some and no to others, and they knew that the only alternative would be a government shutdown and that rank-and-file Members of the Senate and the House would be left with no other choice than to vote yes or no. Congress cannot continue to operate like this. We have to swear off this newfound habit of continuing resolutions and last-minute omnibuses and return to a regular, on-time appropriations process. It is more transparent. It allows every Member of the Congress to participate, to offer amendments, to debate, and to vote--something denied to rank-and- file Members of Congress when you do this through an omnibus bill at the end of the year. But we shouldn't stop there. We need to look at broader reforms to the government's spending habits. The good news is that there are a number of ideas that have been proposed. Last Congress, Senator Romney, the Senator from Utah, introduced something he calls the TRUST Act, which creates a process to save Social Security and protect this critical lifeline for Americans. Social Security, you might recall, is going to become insolvent in the coming years. This is a responsible way to save Social Security and to address what is, roughly, a part of the two-thirds of the Federal spending. In other words, about a third of it is discretionary spending we appropriate, and the other two-thirds is mandatory, or automatic, spending. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation, and would encourage the President and our Democratic colleagues to consider it as part of the debt ceiling discussion. I am also a supporter of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. As I said, Republicans and Democrats are responsible for where we are today, but it would finally make clear that we have to live under the same sort of spending limits that every family in America has to live under and that every local and State government has to live with--a balanced budget. Now, that is common sense. Families and businesses across the country have no choice but to operate within a balanced budget. My State of Texas has a balanced budget requirement, and lo and behold, it just started the current legislative session with a $33 billion surplus. We are looking at a $30 trillion debt. My State has a $33 billion surplus in part, I believe, because it is required by law to balance its budget each year. I have introduced, cosponsored, and voted for balanced budget amendments in the past, and I plan on doing so again this year. That should be part of the conversation. There is a wide range of ideas from our colleagues that would help the Federal Government get its financial house in order, and I would hope that the President would take these ideas and his responsibility seriously. No matter how inconvenient this may be for President Biden, we are operating under a divided government. The ``drunken sailor'' approach may have worked when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, but it won't succeed now. It is time for the administration to sober up and get serious about bipartisan solutions. It is the only path out of this mess. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, after a busy and productive time at home for several weeks, I am glad to be back in the Senate as we kick off the new year and a new Congress. After 2 years of Democrats controlling both Chambers, the House and Senate, the American people voted for a change in the midterm election. Voters sent a Republican majority to the House and opted for a divided government. With a Republican House, Democrats, of course, will no longer be able to abuse the budget reconciliation process to circumvent the normal legislative process, which means the end to partisan spending bills. They will have no choice but to work for common ground and to move legislation through what we call regular order around here, which means by the rules. While there is a lot we need to do in the coming months, one of our top priorities must be the humanitarian and security crisis at the southern border. This crisis has been raging since President Biden took office 2 years ago. Day after day, month after month, migrants have crossed the border in unprecedented numbers. Over the years, we have seen migration surges at different times, but nothing like this. The scale and the immensity of this crisis are unprecedented. Last month, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered more than 250,000 migrants at the southern border. That is the back door to my State, the State of Texas. A quarter of a million people in a single month--that is a new record and a shocking number. To put that in perspective, Customs and Border Protection encountered more migrants in November and December last year than it did in all of 2017--more in 2 months, the last 2 months of last year, than it did in the entire year of 2017. Those figures tell you a lot, but no words can accurately capture just how complex and challenging the situation at the border truly is. To understand what is happening on the ground, you need to show up. You need to see it firsthand, and you need to listen and learn from the experts and the people who are dealing with this day in and day out. I have traveled to the border many, many times over the last few years, as this crisis has gotten worse. I have spoken with the law enforcement officials who have taken an oath to uphold and enforce our laws, the nonprofits--groups like Catholic Charities, which provide humanitarian services--local officials, mayors, and county judges, who are responsible to their own taxpayers for providing services that are overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of people coming across the border. Then there are private landowners who find that their fences are knocked down, their properties are trashed, and that people trespass upon it at will. Then there are the small business owners that depend on the foot traffic that frequently comes back and forth across the border and countless others who are impacted by the current border crisis. Of course, these are exactly the kinds of people you might want to talk to if you actually had an interest in learning more about what the problem is and fashioning some kind of solution. I was happy to introduce these experts to a bipartisan group of my Senate colleagues a couple of weeks ago. Both of us representing border States, Senator Sinema, the Senator from Arizona, and I have had what you might call an exchange program between our two States. A couple of years ago I visited Tucson, AZ, and Senator Sinema, in turn, visited the Rio Grande Valley for a series of briefings. The first thing that jumps out at you is that the border is big--2000 miles. It covers a lot of territory, and it varies a lot, depending on whether you visit urban areas like El Paso or rural areas like Yuma, AZ. That is why, while I am happy that President Biden finally went to the border in El Paso, briefly, I know he could not have gotten a full awareness of the challenges that the current crisis, as a result of his open border policies, presents. Nevertheless, seeing two very different border crossings was valuable to both Senator Sinema and myself, and we decided it was time to share that information with our colleagues. So we invited several of them to join us. In total, there were eight of us--eight Senators on the trip. On the Republican side, we had Senators Tillis, Lankford, Moran, and myself. On the Democratic side, we had Senators Kelly, Murphy, and Coons. Actually, now that Senator Sinema has declared herself as an Independent, she said that this was not a bipartisan trip but a tripartisan trip. We spent a day in El Paso, speaking with law enforcement and local stakeholders. In recent months, the city of El Paso has been ground zero and overwhelmed by the influx of migrants. It doesn't have the capacity--no border community does--to care for the tens of thousands of people coming across the border daily or the infrastructure to house them or to transport them safely to other locations. Fortunately, at least in the near term--and it tends to go in waves, up and down--most recently, the pace in El Paso has slowed down, but some of the sidewalks downtown are still lined with makeshift tents and sleeping bags--migrants camping out in the city, nowhere to go, waiting for their next meal and waiting for some place warm to be able to sleep. We heard about the tremendous burden this crisis has placed on law enforcement at all levels. You can imagine it. They are already understaffed, and now they are overwhelmed. We heard about the growing strain on the nongovernmental organizations and the cities, as they try to mitigate this crisis. Again, this is a crisis of the President's own making, as a result of his open border policies and the failure to enforce our immigration laws. We heard from business leaders who depend on customers coming to their business, as well as other local stakeholders, about the larger impact this crisis has had on the El Paso community and the southwest border region, especially the effect it has had on legitimate trade and travel, which are vital to the region's economy. I don't know if most nonborder-State Senators understand it or not, but we have the largest land port in America in Laredo, TX. They have somewhere between 14 to 16,000 trucks a day come across the border for legitimate trade and commerce. Obviously, that legitimate trade and commerce that creates a lot of jobs all across America are impeded by this vast influx of humanity that are coming currently as a result of the nonenforcement policies of the administration. The day after we visited El Paso, we traveled to Yuma, AZ. And, if you are looking at a map of Arizona, it is in the southwest portion of Arizona, just right next to California, at the very southern-southwest tip of Arizona. Yuma, AZ, is an agricultural community, by and large--a small town, not a lot of infrastructure, not a lot of hospitals, schools, or other places for migrants to be taken care of when they come to the border. So it is no surprise that the Border Patrol there in Yuma, AZ, a little small town on the southwestern border of Arizona--the Border Patrol agents--are strained, security missions are taking a hit, and it has become even more challenging to process and care for the volume of migrants they see coming across the border. Now, lest anybody think that illegal immigration is just related to Mexico and Central America, people fleeing poverty and violence, the acting Border Patrol chief in the Yuma sector told us that, in that sector alone, they encountered migrants speaking 200 languages, from 176 countries--this little sleepy town in southwest Arizona, people speaking 200 languages, from 176 countries. Well, you might ask: How is that possible? Where are these people coming from? I thought they were all coming from Mexico or maybe even Central America. Well, it just so happens that there is a major city just south of Yuma, AZ, in northern Mexico, called Mexicali, and what we are seeing is international human smuggling operations flying people into Mexicali and then turning up in Yuma and claiming asylum--again, overwhelming the capacity of this small little border town to be able to deal with these huge numbers--and people, frankly, abusing the asylum system, which is supposed to be people fleeing from persecution. There are people with Gucci luggage coming across the border and claiming asylum, knowing that, because of the broken asylum process, they will be transported into the interior of the United States and given a notice to appear for a future court hearing. But because of the backlog of the immigration courts, it will be literally years before they are notified to show up. If they do show up, 90 percent of them will be unsuccessful in obtaining asylum. But the fact is they don't, which should be a surprise to no one. Well, as I said, I have learned a lot from the experts on the ground, and I hope our colleagues, our bipartisan delegation of Senators, did as well. I appreciate the Senators who took the time to visit El Paso and Yuma, and I know all of us appreciate the men and women on the frontlines who took time out of their busy schedules, already overwhelmed by this humanitarian crisis and border security crisis. They took the time to talk to us, hoping--just hoping--that we might be able to do something to help them. Now, eight Senators--it won't surprise you--have different views and ideas about how to solve the crisis. Standing together along the border doesn't mean we agree on everything, but it does mean that we are interested in finding solutions. There are conversations occurring in the House and the Senate, and Members from both sides of the aisle are floating a range of ideas to address the crisis. There are some bipartisan conversations occurring, including Senator Sinema from Arizona and Senator Tillis from North Carolina, and I am glad they are working on this, and I am eager to see what they come up with. As we all know, President Biden has shown that he is completely unwilling to use his current authorities to secure the border. And the truth is, he has plenty of authorities but refuses to do his duty and enforce our laws. So it is time for Congress to take action. Of course, that is something that is easier said than done--535 of us, 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate. It is not easy to get everybody--or at least a majority--on the same page, and we have the new reality of divided government, as I said earlier. But we do have within our capacity the ability to try and to achieve consensus and the art of the possible. I know it is going to be a huge reach, a steep hill--pick your metaphor. It is going to be hard because the Democratic majority in the Senate has a very different approach than a Republican majority in the House. But we have to be realistic about what can pass the House and earn 60 votes in the Senate. A bill that will pass only one Chamber won't accomplish anything in dealing with this crisis. Of course, at this moment, the border crisis is consuming all the oxygen in the room, but this must be addressed before we will be able to come to an agreement on any other immigration reforms. It is a prerequisite, a foundation, for any larger agreement. The million- dollar question is, What will that look like? As my colleagues and I saw a couple of weeks ago, one of the biggest challenges is processing and holding capacity. This is a feature of the current catch-and-release policies of the Biden administration. It is not a bug. It is a feature of their catch-and-release policies, and it is being exploited daily by the criminal organizations that continue to get rich smuggling people and drugs across the border. Our system simply was not designed to keep up with the influx of this many people crossing the border every day. As a result, Border Patrol agents told us that they are being shifted from the frontlines to process people in the back office, leaving huge security gaps--fully 40 percent, in some instances, of the border left unprotected because the Border Patrol has to process the migrants, and they have to leave the frontlines to do so, which means that the drug smugglers have an opening, which they exploit on a regular basis, to move illegal drugs into the United States. Cartels are using these corridors to traffic fentanyl and other dangerous drugs into the country--the drugs that took the lives of 108,000 Americans last year alone. One hundred eight thousand Americans died due to drug overdoses from drugs almost entirely coming across the southwestern border. You wonder what it will take to get people's attention, to wake up to this public health hazard, this public safety hazard, this humanitarian and national security crisis. At the same time, migrants with weak and even frivolous asylum claims are being released into the country to await a court date that is years down the line. As I said, many are no-shows, having successfully made it into the United States without any legal right to immigrate. That has got to change. We also need to strengthen border security, which I would define, again, based on learning from Border Patrol and other experts along the border--border security requires a combination of personnel, technology, and infrastructure. That includes appropriately located barriers, fences, levees. It includes sensors, cameras, roadways, and more agents to prevent dangerous people and dangerous substances from entering our country. A safe and secure border relies on all of these elements. It is clear that Congress needs to invest in more resources, but more than that, in correct policies so that immigration across our border will be safe, orderly, humane, and legal. This movement of masses of humanity--250,000 a month--handled by the human smugglers and by the cartels who are getting rich--this is not good for anybody. It is not good for the migrants, who are viewed as a mere commodity--many of whom are left to die. Many young girls and women are sexually assaulted en route because these cartels don't view them as human beings; they view them as a commodity, something they can trade for money. Well, there are a range of other reforms that I am looking at as we try to find our way toward a solution. I am open to hearing from anyone who has an idea, and I hope we can have a serious debate and solutions here in Congress. What the President saw in El Paso was a snapshot of a sanitized border. I have no illusions that he has any depth of understanding about the complexity of what we are dealing with there, but I am glad he finally showed up after 2 years. Given a Republican majority in the House and a Democratic majority in the Senate, we need to be realistic about what it is we might be able to accomplish. But, again, this is all about what somebody has called the art of the possible. That is what legislating is all about. But the fact is, there is an unprecedented humanitarian and security crisis at the southern border, and it is past time for Congress to do something to address it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this is a very popular piece of legislation. As the Senator from California pointed out, the Senate has unanimously passed this on two previous occasions, so hopefully this third time is the charm. What it does is unlocks COVID-19 relief money that States and local jurisdictions have that they no longer need for that purpose, but it allows them now more flexibility to spend it on infrastructure and disaster relief and the like. The best part about it is, it doesn't add one penny to the debt. We would ask for a voice vote.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, over the last few years, pandemic relief bills have sent billions of dollars to State and local governments to support their pandemic responses and recoveries, and it is appropriate that we did so. But the truth is, when the pandemic hit, we didn't know how long it would last or what the ripple effects of that would be, both the public health and economic impacts on State and local governments and the constituencies that they serve. I have heard from countless Texas leaders that they have more money than eligible expenses under the guardrails Congress applied at the time, and my colleagues can attest to the fact that this is not a unique problem to Texas. States, counties, and cities across the country want more flexibility to spend these relief dollars on their highest priority projects, especially infrastructure. If we don't do this, these jurisdictions are going to fritter these dollars away on things that will not have a lasting, positive impact on our economy or public safety. An investment in infrastructure will be an investment in public safety and a growing economy. My friend Senator Padilla from California and I have worked with the administration and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle in order to come up with a bill that would grant this flexibility. This bill originally passed the Senate unanimously last October. You know, people sometimes think that we can't get along, that we can't get anything done, but when big things happen, sometimes they happen without people even recognizing it. That demonstrates not only the bipartisan nature of this legislation but the fact that it just makes good sense. Unfortunately, the House never passed our bill. We have now worked in good faith to build the kind of support necessary among House Members and House leadership in order to get that done, and I hope the Senate will advance this new version today. Simply put, this legislation will unlock billions of dollars in unspent COVID funds for infrastructure projects as well as disaster relief. It restores decision making power to the local level, and--this is unique to spending bills in Washington, DC--this will not result in a single dollar of additional appropriations or a single dollar added to the deficit. This money is already in the hands of the States, the counties, and the cities; they just need more flexibility to spend it in a way that makes sense to them. If I could just add as a quick footnote before deferring to my colleagues, a lot of times when we have disasters or we want to do something big for the country, we pass legislation, but it takes years to implement. Part of the problem is getting the money from Washington, DC, down to those local jurisdictions, among other things. Well, this will expedite these infrastructure projects and disaster relief because they already have it in hand. I just want to say publicly how much I appreciate Senator Padilla and his staff, Senator Murkowski and her staff, and Senator Tester and his staff for working with us on this legislation. Again, this makes so much sense that it passed unanimously previously, and now we have worked out the differences with the House. With any luck, we will get this to the President without further delay. We have benefited from feedback from countless Members on both sides of the aisle, and I hope we can finally grant our State and local leaders the flexibility that they have requested to spend these dollars in a way that makes the most sense according to their priorities.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 5323, which is at the desk.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am glad that we, hopefully soon, will finally pass the National Defense Authorization Act and send this legislation to the President for his signature. Obviously, this has national, even global, implications, but I would like to spend just a moment to talk about what it means to my home State of Texas. This year's NDAA supports a range of projects that will lead our military into the future, from nuclear modernization to next-generation weapons development. It sends critical military assistance to Ukraine and makes a big investment in our national defense stockpile. It focuses, appropriately, on long-term strategic competition with China, and it ensures our troops will have the tools, the training, and the resources they need to succeed in any conflict, and, of course, the ultimate goal is to make the United States military so strong that no country dares engage in a military conflict with us, and thus provides needed deterrents in order to maintain the peace. The Defense Authorization Act shapes our military missions around the world, but it also is important for reasons that hit much closer to home. The Defense Department is the largest employer in the United States, with 2.9 million employees, including both servicemembers and civilians. They are stationed in more than 160 different countries around the world, and on all seven continents. And, on any given day, they can be found providing lifesaving medical care, maintaining aircraft, protecting communities in war zones, or carrying out various missions. Texas is the proud home to 14 military installations which directly employ more than 235,000 people. When you add in construction, information technology, manufacturing, and the many other workers these facilities require, Texas military installations employ more than 620,000 people. The Texas comptroller has estimated that military installations contributed about $114 billion to Texas' economy last year alone. But, significantly, America's military is engrained in the very fabric of our State, and Texans have a profound respect for our servicemembers. My father was a part of the Greatest Generation and served in World War II, as did my father-in-law. My dad was a B-17 pilot, who, unfortunately, was shot down over Germany on a bombing mission on his 26th mission. Fortunately, although he was a POW the last 4 months of the war, he was liberated by General Patton and his army. My father-in-law, who died recently at the age of 96, served at Normandy, where he landed on Utah Beach during part of that dramatic invasion of France, occupied by, of course, the German military. But I lived for a while in San Antonio--many years, actually--and had the privilege of experiencing the incredible support for our military in that city. After all, San Antonio is known as ``Military City USA'' because of the strong and consistent military presence. And while it is unique, based on the sheer concentration of military bases in San Antonio, the strong support for our servicemembers can be seen across the State as well. Whether you are in El Paso or Killeen or Abilene or any of the areas surrounding military installations, it is humbling to see so many men and women who have taken an oath to defend our country, along with their families, who serve as well. As Members of the Senate, we have a responsibility to support our troops and make sure they have what they need to do the job we have asked them to do, and the Defense authorization act is one of the most important ways we do just that. This bill provides the largest pay raise for our troops in two decades. Servicemembers and their families are facing the same inflation headwinds as everybody else in the United States, but starting next month, they will receive a greatly needed and well- deserved 4.6-percent pay raise. This year's National Defense Authorization Act also takes big steps to support military families, and when you have an all-volunteer military like ours, supporting military families is an important component of our support for the military. This Defense Authorization Act will also authorize additional funding to Texas school districts that serve military personnel. It will authorize the extension of reimbursement authority for spouse relicensing to ensure that nurses, teachers, and other spouses whose jobs may require a State-specific license are not saddled with an additional expense. This bill will also support programs in Texas independent school districts that help military-dependent children with severe disabilities. And I am glad it includes bipartisan legislation that I introduced to improve the tools that military commanders will have at their disposal to prevent sexual assault and domestic violence within the Department of Defense. In addition to supporting our servicemembers, this legislation will authorize $315 million for military construction projects in Texas alone. This includes $90 million for a dormitory for basic training recruits at Joint Base San Antonio; $55 million for the new power train facility at the Corpus Christi Army Depot; $31 million for power generation and microgrid operations at Fort Hood in Killeen; $15 million for a new fire station at Fort Bliss in El Paso; and the list goes on and on. Now, these may sound like not all that exciting investments, but they are absolutely critical to the support for our military and our military families and to readiness, which is the ultimate goal--that our military is ready for any threat that comes our way. In addition to providing needed investment at our military bases, the Defense authorization bill provides $4 billion in support to improve the production rate, modernization, and readiness of the F-35 fleet, which is built in Fort Worth. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the fifth generation fighter, is the most sophisticated airplane in our fleet, and it is important that we have an adequate number of them to maintain the readiness of that fleet. This bill also authorizes $23 million in another critical defense asset that will be made in Fort Worth, which is the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft. It authorizes $686 million in funding for F-16 Fighting Falcons which will be made in Texas, as well as $4.7 billion for B-21 Raiders, many of which will be based in Texas at Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene. These investments will support even more Texas jobs and strengthen our military in the process. I am glad this year's Defense authorization bill includes legislation--strangely enough, we stick other unrelated bills into the Defense authorization bill. In this case, the Water Resources Development Act has been inserted also in the Defense authorization bill. But, specifically, this bill, as part of the WRDA bill, will develop the Texas Coastal Spine Project which will provide basic protections of infrastructure against future hurricanes along the Texas gulf coast. In the Houston area alone, we have some of the largest concentration of refining capacity in the world, and the rest of the country depends on the fact that that jet fuel, diesel, and gasoline will be available. If another hurricane were to wipe out Houston like Hurricane Harvey tried to do, obviously, that is something that will have an impact not just locally, not just in my State, but across the Nation as a whole. So this Coastal Spine Project is very important. The Texas gulf coast is home to millions of people and industries that fuel our economy and national security. Well, the war in Ukraine has highlighted another important aspect of energy, and that is energy security. The industries in and around the Texas gulf coast are critical to our security and for those of our allies. I believe that after years of hard work, the Texas Coastal Spine Project has begun the long, long road to final construction, and I am glad this project will be fully authorized in the Water Resources Development Act. The next step is to secure the funding to begin that lengthy construction process, and I am eager to work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make that happen. Given the threats our country is facing around the world, whether it is Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, the War on Terror, the National Defense Authorization Act could not be more urgent or more important. This legislation will make sure that our military is resourced, trained, and ready for action when called upon. It provides our men and women with the resources, training, and equipment they need to defend our country, our way of life, and our freedom. It restores our combat advantage by investing in modern aircraft, weapons, and facilities. It strengthens and builds our alliances around the world. And, above all, it sends the message to the world that our country is, and will remain, the global military leader. There are a lot of friends and allies the United States has around the world and they are very important, but none of them is in a position to lead like the United States of America, and all of them depend on American leadership. And that is part of the message this bill will send about our intention to maintain that leadership role. That is why, for 61 years now, Congress has made passing the NDAA a priority, and I am eager to get this one done and do it for the 62nd time. I want to especially thank Senators Reed and Inhofe, the chairman and ranking members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, for their tireless work on this legislation, as well as all of the members of the Armed Services Committee that voted this bill out of the committee on a strong bipartisan vote last July. It is a long story for why we had to wait from July until today to vote on the bill, but the good news is we are where we are today and have a strong bill that will prepare our military for the threats of today and tomorrow. I look forward to supporting this legislation as soon as we have a chance to vote on it--hopefully, soon this afternoon. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill modifies requirements for certain employment activities by former intelligence officers and employees of the intelligence community.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, interspersed among the farewell speeches, which are always enjoyable to listen to as people reminisce about their time in the Senate and that causes all of us to reflect on our role and what we have done to help our country and help our constituents--and no one has done it better than the Senator from North Carolina--we also have a few things to do before we break for the holidays. Perhaps the next important thing that we have to do is to pass the National Defense Authorization Act, which, of course, provides the authorities necessary to strengthen our Armed Forces, to modernize our defense, and to maintain the peace. This year's Defense authorization act includes a significant increase in defense funding, which, in light of the range of threats confronting our country and the world, is appropriate, coming in roughly at $45 billion above the White House's most recent budget request. This is a bipartisan increase in the authorization, which is the appropriate role of Congress to tell the White House: We think you have low-balled the number, and we think the threats deserve even more support in terms of the funding. These investments are absolutely critical to our military and our national security, but we all know this legislation is more than just about funding levels. It includes a range of bipartisan bills to support those who wear the uniform and their families, our allies, and our national defense as a whole. It really includes a lot of different bills in this umbrella of the National Defense Authorization Act. One example of one of those components is the Protecting Our Servicemembers through Proven Methods Act, which I introduced with Senator Sinema of Arizona and a bipartisan group of colleagues. The goal of this bill is to focus on proven methods that empower military leaders to prevent sexual assault and harassment in the military from happening in the ranks. The RAND Corporation, the think tank, published a 10-step approach to strengthen sexual assault prevention in the military, and step one is all about data. We need a clear picture of the problem before we can craft the most appropriate and effective solutions. Our bipartisan bill specifically answers that recommendation by requiring the Department of Defense to collect data on the causes behind sexual assault, harassment, and domestic violence in the military. That data will better inform our decision making within the Department and beyond. It will help guide our work in the Senate, too, where there is a bipartisan commitment to ending sexual assault and harassment in the military. And I hope it leads to stronger prevention efforts across the board. Our bill requires the Department of Defense to confer with universities and public health institutions to best identify the practices that will combat these abuses, whether that is in the workplace or on college campuses. Reliable data will then inform our prevention efforts and help stop those acts before they occur. We go to great lengths to keep our servicemembers safe on the battlefield, and these efforts need to extend to every part of their service. I am glad this legislation was included in this year's National Defense Authorization Act, and I appreciate all of our colleagues who fought to make that possible. The Defense authorization bill provides a great opportunity to support our friends and allies around the world, and this bill takes big steps to further support Ukraine against the outrageous invasion effected by the Russian Federation on February 24 of this year. We know that the United States can't focus on countering Russia or supporting Ukraine; we need to do both. Over the last 10 months, we supplied Ukraine with critical military assistance, and this year's Defense Authorization Act will give Ukrainian soldiers even more resources to keep up the fight. And I am glad this bill also includes a provision which will impose greater costs on Mr. Putin and the Russian Federation. Since Russia launched its attack on Ukraine, the United States and our allies have imposed sanctions on Russian businesses and oligarchs and cut off Russian banks from the global financial system. But, in typical fashion, Russia has found a loophole in the current sanctions. It has taken a page out of Venezuela's playbook by using the purchase and sale of gold to bring in cash. The Russian Federation started buying gold to offset the devaluation of the ruble and then selling that gold on international markets for high-value currency. In short, Russia is laundering money through the gold market, and we need to put a stop to it. That is why I introduced the Stop Russian GOLD Act with Senators King, Hassan, and Hagerty to end this practice. This legislation would apply sanctions to anyone who helps Russia finance their illegal war against Ukraine by buying or selling or transporting Russian blood gold. That means anyone who buys or transports gold from Russia's central bank holdings would be the target of sanctions themselves, a deterrent for anyone considering doing this sort of business with Russia. So we need to do everything we can to cut the financing to Putin's war machine, and this is one important way to do it, while we continue to support Ukraine in their will to repel and defeat Russian aggression and invasion of their sovereign territory. I am glad the NDAA will build on the work we have done to strengthen our semiconductor supply chain. I know we have all learned a lot about the vulnerability of our technology, everything from our television sets to our computers to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, or even our cell phones--the threat of high-end semiconductors being cut off at supply. And over the last couple of years, we have done big things, made major strides to bolster domestic chipmaking. As our colleagues know, this is a matter of both economic and national security. Made-in- America semiconductors, microcircuits, mean more jobs, investments, and more growth here in the United States, and a strong domestic supply means we aren't at the mercy of other countries for our most critical technology. Congress funded the CHIPS Act earlier this summer, and we are already seeing a glimpse of the sort of investments it will bring to the United States, most notably in places like Arizona and Ohio but also in New York and in Texas and in many other places around the country. There is more we can and should do to safeguard our critical supply chains. At this moment, Chinese companies with known connections to the Chinese Communist Party are actively selling semiconductors to companies that do business with the U.S. Government. That is a huge red flag and a major vulnerability. It puts us at risk of cyber attacks and threatens the disclosure of sensitive information. And our reliance on these Chinese companies is a risk in and of itself. If the Chinese Communist Party wanted to starve the United States of our access to chips, it could use these companies to help in that effort. With the snap of President Xi's finger, they could cut off the supply of chips to companies that supply products to the U.S. Government. We are well aware of the risks associated with reliance on other countries for semiconductors, which is why this has been such a big priority over the last couple of years. Now we need to ensure that the U.S. Government isn't purchasing chips from companies connected with the Chinese Communist Party. U.S. military assets shouldn't be threatened by using these chips, which could be sabotaged by the Chinese Communist Party and the People's Republic of China. Senators Schumer and Wicker and I have worked together on an amendment which will address this vulnerability. Our amendment would prohibit the U.S. Government from doing business with Chinese companies with known links to the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese military. It specifically mentions three companies with known links. This ban will be phased in, in a responsible way, to ensure it doesn't lead to paralyzing supply chain disruptions; but once it is fully implemented, it will ensure that taxpayer dollars are not spent on chips from Chinese military contractors. I am glad this amendment made its way into the NDAA, and I want to thank Senator Schumer and Senator Wicker for working together to make this possible. Those are just a few of the pieces of legislation contained within the National Defense Authorization Act, but it also includes other important provisions too. It includes bipartisan legislation I introduced to prohibit former members of the intelligence community from working for our foreign adversaries, including state sponsors of terrorism. What we have seen is occasionally when people retire, they are hired by other foreign governments with the knowledge that they take along with them which came in the form of protecting the United States but could then be used by our adversaries to endanger the United States. We also, in the NDAA, amended existing drug trafficking laws to crack down on countries like China that are known to export precursor chemicals used in deadly drugs like fentanyl, the synthetic opioid that took the lives of 71,000 Americans last year alone. This also includes--the National Defense Authorization Act--the work product of the Environment and Public Works Committee, known as WRDA, the Water Resources Development Act; and, specifically, so far as it applies to my State of Texas, this bill authorizes the Texas Coastal Spine Project, which will safeguard communities and critical industries along the Texas gulf coast against inevitable future hurricanes. The bill also requires the President to document, catalog, and preserve evidence of war crimes committed in Ukraine so that justice will eventually be served. I want to commend Senators Inhofe and Reed for the bipartisan work that they have done on the Defense authorization bill. My only regret is it has taken us this long to get to it since it came out of the Armed Services Committee last July, but we know that they have done their best under the circumstances to include bipartisan recommendations and legislation that will keep our country strong and help maintain the peace. We know that both Senators Reed and Inhofe have fought tough headwinds getting the bill to the floor, and my hope is that tomorrow we will have a chance to vote on it, perhaps with a handful of amendments. This is a strong bill that will support our men and women in uniform and their families. It will help preserve our readiness against threats anywhere in the world and help preserve our national security. I look forward to casting my vote in support of that bill, perhaps as early as tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill modifies requirements for certain employment activities by former intelligence officers and employees of the intelligence community.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my children are grown now, but every time that we moved or considered what neighborhood to live in, as they were growing up and attending public schools, the first question we would ask is, ``What about the schools?'' because we, like most parents, wanted to make sure that our children went to the very best schools possible. And if we had to dig a little deeper and figure out how do we buy a house in a neighborhood that was in that school district, then we would do it. But the sad fact of life is that many parents of lesser means, of lower income, don't have the luxury of buying a house in a neighborhood where a public school is excellent. In fact, many of our children, because they don't have access to charter schools, are literally trapped in failing schools, which will forever affect their course of life, their development, the jobs they can qualify for, the level of education they can achieve. All of that will be impacted negatively by the fact that many of our young people go to schools that are less than excellent and, in many cases, failing. In 2010, I think it was, I saw the documentary called ``Waiting for Superman.'' This was a story that in one way was exhilarating but in another way it was very depressing because it was all about the lottery system in New York's schools. If you were lucky enough to win the lottery, you knew that your life and your future was going to be forever impacted for the better. But I still remember looking at the faces and the tears of the children who did not win the lottery, who did not get to go to the best schools, and they knew that their life, too, would be forever impacted but in that case for the worse. I am a firm believer that competition makes us all better. It makes us work harder, strive for greater achievement. But I think the public school system--in particular, the teachers unions--they don't want any competition because they don't want anybody to show that our children can be educated better--with better teachers, better training, better facilities. And that is what the charter school movement has provided: some competition, some basis for comparison. If everybody is operating at this level, with no one operating at this level, then everybody is going to continue to operate in a subpar performance. Of course, I am not painting with a broad brush, but I am saying that a lot of low-income children are condemned to bad schools with no way out. And charter schools offer a way out for those children. Now, I think sometimes the term ``school choice'' gets confused with charter schools because school choice, as I understand it, is more broadly interpreted to mean parochial schools and that sort of thing-- private schools. But charter schools are public schools. We are talking about high-quality, tuition-free public schools that are open to all students. In my State, in Texas, we have 900 charter schools. They don't serve the elite. They don't serve the wealthy. They don't serve even the majority population. In fact, 62 percent of Texas charter school students are Hispanic. We have about a 42-percent Hispanic population. So you can say that charter schools disproportionately benefit Hispanic students. Twenty-seven percent of the students that attend charter schools have limited proficiency in English; that is, English is not their first language. And the overwhelming majority of students are economically disadvantaged. In other words, their parents can't buy a house in the best school district in town. Their parents don't have the money to send them to a private school. And so charter schools represent the only real option-- public, tuition-free schools that are open to all students. I am concerned that the Biden administration is too close to the teachers unions that were responsible for much of the extended lockdowns we saw during COVID-19, and many of their members basically refused to go back to the classroom even though across the country private schools and many other educational institutions were able to continue--yes, observing social distancing, masking, all of the protocols we became very familiar with during the pandemic. But they continued to learn in person, in school--my understanding is, for example, virtually all the Catholic schools because they depend on the tuition dollars from parents, and parents weren't going to pay to have their children learn sitting in front of a computer, if they were able to learn at all. And we are only today beginning to skim the surface of the kind of damage that occurred to our students--our children--as a result of remote learning. You know, I sort of envision a single mom with three children who may not have even graduated from high school, much less college, herself, worried about her own job, worried about being able to provide for her family, with three school-aged children, all attending different grade levels. I can't imagine being able to adequately supervise and make sure that your children are able to learn in those circumstances. Maybe you have three kids from three different grades with three separate curricula sitting in front of a computer trying to pick up whatever educational benefit that you can. What we learned, as a result of the draconian lockdowns supported and encouraged by Randi Weingarten and the teachers unions, is that many of our children have fallen far behind. And it may take not months, not weeks, but literally years to catch up, if they ever do. So I don't really understand this idea of some of the Biden administration and the teachers unions who don't like and won't tolerate charter schools. Is it because they are OK with children being trapped in failing schools? I can't really understand why they would view this as a threat. Public, tuition-free, high-quality charter schools--these are public schools. They aren't private schools. These aren't for the elite. This isn't for the rich. This is for overwhelmingly economically disadvantaged students. And so I support Senator Tim Scott. I applaud his leadership in this area in saying that the Biden administration should not stand in the way of these charter schools. Every child deserves a quality education, and every parent deserves the freedom to choose the school that will serve their child best. So I appreciate the fact that Senator Scott is such a tireless advocate for charter schools and is a champion of choices and alternatives for parents, many of whom are economically disadvantaged and have no other choice other than to send their child to a failing school. I hope our colleagues will join us in voting to overturn this damaging new rule tomorrow when we vote on it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill modifies statutory definitions relating to narcotics and drug trafficking.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill modifies statutory definitions relating to narcotics and drug trafficking.