John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today we mourn the loss of life of at least 17 people at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School near Fort Lauderdale, FL. We are reminded that when we are asked to do something, there are things we can do to help lessen the likelihood of such terrible tragedies, recognizing that each of these circumstances is unique, and we don't yet know everything that there is to know or that we should know about this particular shooter. Suffice it to say, he telegraphed on social media, according to reports, his intention to do what he ultimately did. We in Congress, the policymakers, need to come up with tools to be available to law enforcement and the social media platforms to be able to monitor these sort of terroristic threats much in the same way we monitor social media for al-Qaida and ISIS and other terrorists abroad who try to recruit people in the United States in order to kill our fellow citizens in place. We need to not only think about and pray for the families and teachers and support staff who have been affected by this terrible act but conduct hearings and talk to the experts and find out what kind of tools might be available to us. I will mention another example of something we could do that would, I am confident, save lives. In my home State of Texas only a few months ago, we saw a mass shooting in a small town called Sutherland Springs, which is near San Antonio. The gunman there killed 26 people and wounded 20 more. He was a convicted felon. Under existing law, he could not legally purchase or possess firearms, but that didn't stop him from getting the weapons he used to murder those 26 people and shoot 20 more. Part of the reason was, his criminal history had not been uploaded to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is maintained by the FBI. So the gun retailer, when he had gone in and lied on the background check document, hadn't known he had been legally disqualified from purchasing a firearm. I have introduced legislation to try to fix that specific problem. It is called the Fix NICS Act. The House has already passed it, but it is awaiting action in the Senate. Our churches and schools should be refuges--places where parents and children, especially, feel safe and secure. Many of these shootings can be prevented, perhaps not all, but we need to do everything we can. Part of the way we can ensure that our children are protected is to enforce current law--and not just our children but adults as well, as we saw in Sutherland Springs. We can fix our broken background check system and prohibit dangerous individuals who have been convicted of serious crimes from acquiring firearms legally. As I said, we don't know all of the facts of the Florida shooting, and the circumstances, as is almost always the case, appear to be a little cloudy right now. It may be we will find out there are some clues that this shooter had been sending well in advance of this terrible tragedy that might have prevented it from occurring. There is no reason we cannot advance this bipartisan legislation, the Fix NICS legislation, which has already passed in the House. I, personally, am unwilling to face another family member who has lost a loved one as a result of one of these mass shootings that could have been prevented by making sure the background check system had worked as Congress had intended. Mr. President, on a separate note, this week, a group led by Chairman Grassley of the Senate Judiciary Committee formally introduced a bill to address the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals issue and border security. It is a good starting point because it could actually be signed into law and solve the challenge we have promised to address in providing these young people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a box. Because they cannot become American citizens due to the fact that their parents brought them into the country illegally, it would provide them a predictable and productive future. I am glad to be a cosponsor of this legislation, which is called the Secure and Succeed Act. As the President has promised, it does provide a pathway to citizenship for an estimated 1.8 million people who are DACA-eligible. That is an extraordinary offer by the President of the United States. Who would have ever thought this President would say to these young people, ``We are going to give you a chance to become American citizens''? That number is far more than those who were covered by the Executive order that was signed by President Obama because, right now, there are only about 690,000--I say ``only''--DACA recipients. President Trump would make it 1.8 million. Just as importantly, this bill provides a real plan to strengthen border security by utilizing more boots on the ground, better technology, and additional infrastructure, and it enhances and modernizes our ports of entry through which many of the illegal drugs come that flow into this country from the south. This bill reallocates visas from the diversity lottery system, which is just sort of like a roll of the dice, but it will do it in a way that is fair, and it continues the family-based immigration categories until the current backlog is cleared. I know other colleagues have been working hard on their own ideas, some of which were introduced yesterday and earlier this morning, but one group I haven't heard much from so far is that of our colleagues across the aisle who shut down the government over the weekend a couple of weeks ago because they insisted we provide a time to address this issue. Indeed, in response, once they agreed to reopen the government, the majority leader offered them that time and that opportunity, and that is this week. Yet, so far, none of our Democratic colleagues have even produced a bill. Rather, the bill has been produced by Senator Grassley and his working group I mentioned. There is another bill by Senator Collins and Senator Rounds, which we will be voting on here shortly. Then, I believe, Senator Gardner and Senator Bennet have another proposal. The very folks who shut down the government over this issue have failed to produce a plan in response to this demand that we have a debate and that we have a vote to try to address the problem. On Tuesday, the majority leader tried twice to open the debate and start voting, but, both times, there were objections heard by our Democratic colleagues--this despite their repeated promises over the years to address the DACA issue once and for all. Now the clock has run so we can finally get started, and we will start voting, as I understand the majority leader's unanimous consent request, at about 2:30 today. We are just getting started in our voting due to the stalling and the lack of, really, much debate. Certainly, there have been no substantive offers up until this point from our colleagues across the aisle. I believe sincerely that Republicans and Democrats alike want to provide certainty to these DACA recipients, but we have to address the underlying problems with our border security and our flawed immigration system as well. I know our colleague from Pennsylvania has introduced an amendment to end dangerous sanctuary city policies. It is simply unacceptable for local jurisdictions to decide they are not going to cooperate with Federal law enforcement agencies. We are a nation, and we are a nation of laws, so the idea that some local group could decide not to cooperate with Federal law enforcement authorities ought to worry all of us. Even though this amendment has been endorsed by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and the National Association of Police Organizations, many of our colleagues across the aisle will probably vote against it. That is especially odd since some of them voted to advance a similar sanctuary city measure themselves in 2015. Even more of our Democratic colleagues voted to advance what is known as Kate's Law in 2016. It is named for Kate Steinle, the young woman who was murdered in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant who had been released from custody. Kate's Law would stiffen penalties for illegal immigrants who have been caught entering the country repeatedly, as her killer had done. What is controversial about that? If you break the law repeatedly and we find you, there should be very serious consequences. Perhaps Kate Steinle would be alive today had that been the case before her untimely death. I don't know why our Democratic colleagues refuse to vote for these and other related proposals. I really don't get it. Yet I do know one thing that is worth highlighting: Their unwillingness to support reforms represents a stark departure from what they have said in the past. For example, in 2006, the senior Senator from California said: ``Democrats are solidly behind controlling the border, and we support the border fence. . . . We've got to get tough on the border.'' She was then joined by then-Senator Harry Reid, who had made similar statements. The senior Senator from Colorado has said the Democrats still believe in border security. That is good to hear. I wish their actions reflected that. In recent years, the junior Senator from New Mexico has said: ``It is critical we have the personnel, equipment, and policies in place that focus enforcement on the most significant public safety threats along the border.'' I could not have said that better myself, but when it comes time to vote, strangely, almost uniformly, our colleagues vote no. I agree with our colleague from Indiana as well, who went down to the border a while back and said he had seen for himself just how bad the situation was in certain areas. That is why he voted to hire more border agents, penalize businesses that hire illegal immigrants, and deport those who commit felonies. My point is, we should all remember we are not as far apart as the press would seem to make it. Now it is time to advance the bill to that effect--not next time, not next month, not next year. We know the clock is ticking. The President has given us until March 5 to get this done, but if this week is any indication, our colleagues on the other side don't seem to be in any particular hurry. As the majority leader said earlier this week, we need to stop making political points and start making a law. That means passing it out of the Senate, passing it out of the House, and getting the President to sign it into law. That is how you make law. Several weeks ago, as I said, the majority leader made a commitment to hold this debate and to hold it this week. He has lived up to that commitment, and now we can't let it all just go to waste and squander this opportunity. I am really shocked by that after the President made this offer of a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million young adults who were brought into this country as children illegally by their parents. I have always said we don't hold children responsible for their parents' mistakes. That is why we should embrace this proposal by the President. I don't know how you tell these young people we had the opportunity to address their anxiety and the uncertainty in their futures by passing a bill that encompasses the President's proposal and gives them a pathway to citizenship. How do you look them in their faces and say we squandered this golden opportunity, maybe a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity? That is what this week is about. There are about 124,000 DACA recipients in my State of Texas, and I will proudly cast a vote soon to ensure that they stay here and contribute to our schools, our churches, and our communities. We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws, and you cannot have one without the other. What this week is about is finding a bipartisan permanent solution for these young adults but doing more than just that. I, certainly, respect that some of our colleagues have introduced thoughtful ideas, but we have to remember that, ultimately, we need to move a bill through the Senate that can pass not only this body but the House and be signed into law by the President. This is not about grandstanding or making a political point. The idea is to produce a result, one that we have all said we want. So let's not waste any more time. Let's send the House and then the President something that can become law and provide certainty to these young people who are worried about their future and regain our legacy as a nation that believes in the rule of law and security for all. I yield the floor.

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

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

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today a group led by Chairman Grassley of the Senate Judiciary Committee formally introduced a bill to address the DACA issue--the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals issue--that we have heard so much about, as well as border security. I think it is a good starting point, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of the legislation, which is called the Secure and Succeed Act. Perhaps the most important thing about this bill is that it actually has a good chance of becoming law. That is because the President supports it. It encompasses the four pillars the President has laid out for us in any solution to the DACA challenge. The Secure and Succeed Act provides legal status and a pathway to citizenship for an estimated 1.8 million people who meet the specific criteria of DACA. This is a far larger number than the number of individuals covered by President Obama's Executive order. The fact is, this President has not only said to the 690,000 DACA recipients ``You are going to have a better, brighter future and a pathway to American citizenship''; this President has also offered all of the young people eligible but who might not have previously signed up that same opportunity. What an extraordinarily generous offer. This bill also provides for a real plan to strengthen border security, utilizing the three things that Border Patrol has always told me are essential: more boots on the ground, better technology, and, yes, some infrastructure in hard-to-control locations, along with enhanced ports of entry. I know there has been some confusion about that. The President likes to talk about the wall. It is true that back in roughly 2006 or 2007, Congress called for something called the Secure Fence Act, which got the support of then-Senator Obama, then-Senator Hillary Clinton, and, of course, current Senator Chuck Schumer. They supported the Secure Fence Act, as did an overwhelming majority of Senators from both parties. When the President has talked about the wall, he has made pretty clear what he is really talking about is a barrier similar to what was supported on a bipartisan basis. He said that the Border Patrol is going to have to be able to see through it. Indeed, as he has conceded, in many places it doesn't make any sense at all to have a physical barrier. That is why technology and boots on the ground are so important. This legislation also reallocates visas from the diversity lottery system in a way that is fair and continues the existing, family-based categories until the current backlog is cleared, which would take, probably, about 10 years. I am proud to cosponsor this commonsense solution. But I know other colleagues have been working hard on their ideas, which I look forward to reviewing as the debate continues. One group I haven't heard from much, though, is our Democratic colleagues, who literally shut down the government to force this debate to occur on their terms and at a time they chose. We are still trying to figure out--OK, you won, in a sense. I think the American people lost when you shut down the government, but you made your point. You wanted a time certain and you wanted a fair process by which to present your ideas, and we have been waiting--here it is Wednesday, with the clock ticking, still waiting--for that Democratic proposal. What is their plan? What is their proposal? Do they even have one? And if they do, why are they leaving the rest of us, as well as the Nation, in the dark? As the majority leader said yesterday, we need to stop trying to score political points and start making law. The way to get this done is to take a proposal like the President's and get started; people can offer amendments to that. Whatever gets 60 votes in the Senate passes the Senate, and then it is up to the House to pass it, and then it is up to the President to decide whether to sign it. He has pretty much given us the outline of what he would find acceptable. Again, insofar as it grants a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million people, that is extraordinary in and of itself. The majority leader made a commitment to hold this debate and to hold it this week. He has lived up to his promise, and now we can't let it all go to waste. As each minute and each hour clicks off the clock, it looks as if it is more and more likely to happen--that all of this will go to waste. The country is watching. The DACA recipients in my home State--all 124,000 of them--are watching and worrying, understandably anxious about what their status is going to be when this program ends on March 5. One of those DACA recipients is Julio Ramos, a biology teacher who is getting his master's degree in biomedical informatics. He is from Brownsville, TX, right along the U.S.-Mexico border, and he is a DACA recipient. After his mother was diagnosed with breast cancer, he decided he wanted to be a doctor. He has even been accepted to Texas medical schools, but he wasn't sure whether he would be allowed to attend. He is waiting and watching, worried about his future. Then there is Miriam Santamaria from Houston, TX. She graduated from high school in Houston with honors. She paid her way through community college, and she works as a manager at a construction company and owns her own photography business. She sounds like quite an entrepreneur to me. Miriam said: ``I am not looking for any kind of recognition or sympathy, [I'm just] looking to make a difference and inspire others.'' She is also looking to live in peace in the only country that she has ever known and calls home. She came to the United States when she was 4 years old. Finally, there is a man whom I will just call by the first name of Daniel. He, too, lives in Texas. He graduated from the University of North Texas with a degree in advertising and contributes productively to society. Daniel came from Mexico at the age of 2, and he said: ``All the choices I make, I made as an American, because that's what I am.'' We need to listen to these stories as we consider this legislation and as people are perhaps tempted into the political grandstanding and gamesmanship that, unfortunately, sometimes overwhelms our best intentions. These are real human lives hanging in the balance. They are important, and they teach us about the real people behind the policy. But their stories are not the only ones we need to listen to. We need to listen to the stories of the men and women who have been waiting patiently for years to come here in a legal way through visas and green cards, waiting patiently to join their families here in the United States, doing it the old-fashioned, legal way. They have had to wait, some for years, some for decades. We should listen to the stories of the border communities, which I am proud to represent in Texas, from men and women, many of whom are of Hispanic origin, who have suffered property damage from illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is a pretty ugly business when you consider that it is in the hands of drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations. Recently, one of the military leaders who is responsible for Southern Command, which is Central America south, said that these transnational criminal organizations or cartels are ``commodity agnostic.'' That is the phrase he used. He said that they don't care whether it is people, drugs, or other contraband. What they are in it for is the money, and they are willing to do anything for the money. Unfortunately, victims of human trafficking know exactly what I am talking about. Despite these hardships, businesses in many of the communities, like those along the border, are thriving. But we need to do everything we can to make sure that continues to be the case. Sympathy for DACA recipients is right and good because, in America, we do not punish children for the mistakes of their parents, and we are not going to punish these young people who are now adults and have become part of our communities. But Americans who live along the border in my State realize that illegal immigration has caused real, tangible harm in terms of public safety, property damage, and their way of life. When I talk to people like Manny Padilla, the Border Patrol's sector chief for the Rio Grande Valley, it is hard not to realize just how much is required and how many more resources we need to maintain situational awareness and operational control along the border. I will say this: The Federal Government has failed over the years to live up to its responsibility to maintain the security of our border, so taxpayers in my State have to step up and fill the gap left by the failure of leadership of the Federal Government. But we have an opportunity to fix that in this legislation, following the parameters the President has laid out for us. That is why, during this week's debate, ensuring additional resources for border security is an essential piece of the puzzle. That includes areas other than between our ports of entry. Mexico is one of our largest trading partners. We have legitimate trade and commerce that flows back and forth across the border with Mexico and supports 5 million American jobs. Unfortunately, the cartels have figured out how to exploit that as well. So, because of antiquated infrastructure and technology at our ports of entry, many of them are vulnerable through the importation of poison--literally, drugs like methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, and the like--that has taken the lives of so many Americans. We need to do more and better when it comes to maintaining those ports of entry--upgrading the infrastructure, improving the technology--so we can interdict more of that. Again, the border is as varied as anyplace in the world, with areas that are flat and open, areas that have mountains and rolling hills, rivers, obviously. Technology, as we have come to see, has transformed our way of life, and technology can increasingly be the answer to supplement the boots on the ground and the infrastructure that the Border Patrol thinks are necessary. There is a big difference between detecting illegal immigration in rural areas and urban ones. In urban areas, the Border Patrol tells us that you might have just a few seconds before someone can cross the border and enter into the United States. In large, open areas, there is more of a lag time, so perhaps a fence or some infrastructure is not as important; technology might be more important, along with the Border Patrol agents themselves. My basic point is that border security is complex. For those who think it is as easy as one, two, three, I encourage you to do as some of my colleagues have done; that is, travel to the border--we will host you--to see firsthand why it is crucial that we strengthen our personnel, technology, and infrastructure. That has to be one of our priorities, and I am grateful to the President for making this one of his requirements as well. We have an opportunity to address not only the anxiety and plight of DACA recipients but also to make our country safer and more secure; to reform our legal immigration system in a way that will help us accelerate the reunification of families out of the backlog of people waiting patiently and legally outside of the country to come into the country through legal immigration; and to address the President's concern about the roll of the dice in the diversity lottery that makes little sense, given our need for people with job-based skills, graduate degrees, and other merit-based criteria that would make them valuable to the United States, in addition to winning the lottery. I hope we will take advantage of this opportunity this week. Time is wasting. It is Wednesday, and we don't have any time to waste at all. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 11 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February, 14, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Joseph Simons, of Virginia, Christine S. Wilson, of Virginia, Noah Joshua Phillips, of Maryland, and Rohit Chopra, of New York, each to be a Federal Trade Commissioner. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February, 14, 2018, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President's Fiscal Year 2019 Budget.'' Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February, 14, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the President's budget and the following nominations: Dennis Shea, of Virginia, to be a Deputy United States Trade Representative (Geneva Office), with the rank of Ambassador, and C. J. Mahoney, of Kansas, to be a Deputy United States Trade Representative (Investment, Services, Labor, Environment, Africa, China, and the Western Hemisphere), with the rank of Ambassador. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February, 14, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February, 14, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a business meeting and hearing on the following nominations: Jeff T.H. Pon to be Director, Office of Personnel Management and Michael Rigas, to be Deputy Director, Office of Personnel and Management. Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February, 14, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Making Indian Country Count: Native Americans and the 2020 Census.'' Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February, 14, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Joel M. Carson III, of New Mexico, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, Colm F. Connolly, and Maryellen Noreika, both to be a United States District Judge for the District of Delaware, William F. Jung, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, and Ryan T. Holte, of Ohio, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims. Committee on Small Business The Committee on Small Business is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February, 14, 2018, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: avid Christian Tryon, of Ohio, to be Chief Counsel for Advocacy, and Hannibal Ware, of the Virgin Islands, to be Inspector General, both of the Small Business Administration. Subcommittee on Personnel The Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February, 14, 2018, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support The Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February, 14, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on National Parks The Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February, 14, 2018, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday we began floor debate on something that we have literally been talking about for years. I remember, after the election of 2012, meeting at the White House with then-President Barack Obama, with Speaker of the House Boehner, Leader McCarthy, Senator McConnell, and others. The President was prepared to do something he had threatened to do, which we actually asked him not to do, and that is, to try to take unilateral Executive action to deal with the issue of these young adults who came with their parents, when they were children, into the United States in violation of our immigration laws. We said: Please, President Obama, give us a chance to work with you to come up with a solution. He listened and said: No. I am going to sign an Executive order or action, and I am going to go this alone. Well, unfortunately for the young people who were the beneficiaries of this DACA Executive order, the court struck it down, so they were left in doubt and in some jeopardy, wondering, now that they had been granted a deferred action against deportation by President Obama, what their future would look like. So President Trump, upon the advice of General Kelly, who was then Secretary of Homeland Security, said: Give the Congress some time to deal with this. Indeed, here we are with a deadline of March 5. All of the time that this President has been in office--since January 20 of last year--this has been basically living on borrowed time insofar as the DACA Program is involved. President Trump quite appropriately said that this is a legislative responsibility and that Congress needs to deal with this. Well, here we are. The debate actually began on February 8, which is the date that Senator McConnell, the Senate majority leader, agreed to initiate the motion to proceed on the debate. Of course, you will remember what happened. The government was shut down because our Democratic colleagues refused to proceed to deal with the continuing resolution for funding the government until there was some resolution of this DACA issue. So the majority leader said: We are going to deal with it starting February 8 if there is no other agreement, and it is going to be a fair and impartial process. Everybody's ideas are going to be aired, and people should be able to vote on those ideas. Well, here we are. We started yesterday with cloture on the bill. Now, under the Senate rule, there are 30 hours that will expire tonight at 11 p.m. or thereabouts, and we are waiting on our colleagues across the aisle to begin this process that they were so eager to initiate that they shut down the government. So far, the majority leader came to the floor and made an offer at about noon today, saying: We will start with a vote on an amendment of your choosing, and then we will go to one of our choosing. We will go back and forth and have an orderly process so I can follow through on my commitment to keep a fair, equal, and orderly process. Well, even though they were willing to shut down the government to bring us to this point, now they seem to be incredibly reluctant to actually have a vote on any of their proposals. It really is bizarre. We all want a solution for these young adults. In America, we don't punish children for the mistakes their parents made, and we are not going to punish these young people, who are now adults, who have been able to go to college and, in many instances, become very productive people. We want to provide them an opportunity to flourish. Indeed, the President--notwithstanding the fact that 690,000 DACA recipients currently exist, he said: I will be willing to up that number to everybody who is eligible, whether or not they signed up. That is 1.8 million young people. Do you know what? We are not only going to give them deferred action, we are going to give them an opportunity to become Americans. It is incredibly generous, but our colleagues across the aisle seem to be tripped up by their own plan and unable to respond to this generous offer. The President has said: In return for the 1.8 million young people who will have a pathway to citizenship and predictability and stability and a great future for their lives, we are going to have to secure the border. We are going to have to do the sorts of things the Federal Government should have done a long time ago. Coming from Texas, a border State, we have 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico. As we heard this morning in the world threats hearing in the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Director of National Intelligence said the transnational criminal organizations or cartels, which are commodity agnostic--they make money trafficking in people, drugs, or other contraband, and they are exploiting the porous nature of our border with our neighbor to the south, Mexico. Indeed, Central American countries are sending even their young children up to the border, exploiting a loophole in our law. The President has also said that in addition to dealing with border security, he wants to change legal immigration to focus on the nuclear family--mom and dad and the kids. If other people want to come to the United States, then they can qualify for various employment-based visas. They can come study as a student. They can come as a tourist. They can qualify for an H-1B visa as somebody who is highly skilled. There are other ways to come. But we are going to limit the number of visas and green cards based strictly on your family relationships. Then the President said that he wanted to deal with the diversity lottery visa. This is perhaps the most difficult to understand visa our government issues. Basically, what we say is that there are 50,000 diversity visas, and for those countries that aren't otherwise represented, we are going to sort of spread those like bread on the water and welcome 50,000 people without regard to their background, their education, their other merits or qualifications. Some have said, like the President--and I agree with him--that we ought to look at not only how immigrants can benefit from coming to the United States but also what qualities they have that they can bring us. Yes, we ought to compete for the best and brightest--for example, the 600,000 or so foreign students who come to our colleges and universities. What about focusing on those who graduate in STEM fields--science, technology, engineering, and math. There have been some folks who have said: Well, we ought to staple a green card to those people because we want to continue to attract the best and the brightest. We don't want to train them, educate them, and send them home, only to compete with us. Well, those are some great ideas. We are not going to be able to have votes on bills unless our friends across the aisle will agree to get onto a bill. Preferably it is the bill that Senator Grassley and others, including myself, have cosponsored, which will be filed this afternoon, based on those four pillars. Coming from a border State, I have spent quite a bit of time in the Rio Grande Valley, down in Laredo, and over in El Paso, and I have learned a lot from the experts at the border, who would be the Border Patrol agents themselves. I have talked to people like Manny Padilla, who is the chief Border Patrol officer in the Rio Grande Valley, which is one of the most active regions in the country. His sector, at times, has been one of the busiest in the country, with some 200,000 apprehensions a year just in the Rio Grande Valley itself. I have seen the border firsthand, of course. It is vast, and the terrain varies widely, from portions where the Rio Grande River flows strongly, to ones where it has dried up, where there is hardly any water at all separating Mexico and the United States, and still others that include 3,200-foot cliffs along the riverbank, particularly out in the Big Bend area of West Texas. I have also had the opportunity to welcome many of my colleagues who don't come from border States to my State so they could become better informed about the nature and the challenge of border security. When you spend time there and speak to the local officials and people who live and work along the border, you realize the scale of the challenge we are facing in securing the border, as well as combating the cartels and people who are importing poison into the United States and unfortunately taking far too many lives as the result of drugs. You realize that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work. Generations of Texans know that too. People who live in border communities are an invaluable resource, and we ought to be talking to them about what would work best to provide the security in a way that would also be helpful to their local community. I have mentioned before one of those down in Hidalgo, TX, where the Border Patrol said: We need some physical barriers to help control the flow of illegal immigration across the border. The local community said: Well, we need to improve the flood levee system so that we can actually buy affordable insurance, so that we can develop our property at a reasonable cost. Out of that came a bond election for a levee wall system that was a win-win. It provided the flood protection needed by the community, and it provided the physical barrier that the Border Patrol said they needed in order to control illegal immigration. So there is an opportunity for a win-win here if we will just listen to the experts and we will talk to the local stakeholders and the people who live, work, and play along our border with Mexico. I have also had many conversations with Hispanic leaders from across my State. One of them is my friend Roger Rocha, the president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC, who has been courageous in putting his reputation on the line in order to find common ground and give DACA recipients an opportunity not only to stay and work but to eventually become American citizens. Well, yesterday, I said there will be a process that is fair to everybody--that is what the majority leader guaranteed--and all of our colleagues will have a chance to have their proposals considered. Amendments will have a 60-vote threshold before they can be adopted. That is the rule of the Senate. What I am interested in is solving the problem, and that means not only finding a proposal that can get 60 votes in the Senate but one that can pass the House and be signed into law by the President. I read this morning--when I got up and was making a cup of coffee and looking through the newspaper--that our colleague across the aisle, the Democratic whip, whom I have worked with and met with on this topic many times, said his goal was to get all the Democrats and 11 Republicans to get to that 60-vote threshold. That was his goal in this legislation. What is missing is how he would propose to get this passed through the Republican majority in the House and signed by the President if it doesn't comply with the President's requirements that he laid out in his four pillars. I am not interested in a futile act; I am interested in actually making a law, which means passing the Senate, passing the House, and getting signed into law by the President. Yesterday, a group led by Chairman Grassley of the Judiciary Committee put forth a proposal that I believe can pass the Senate, can pass the House, and can be signed into law by President Trump. It is called the Secure and Succeed Act. The name itself is quite fitting. We have to secure the border, and we have to be able to provide for the future success of DACA recipients. It is not one or the other; it is both. The Secure and Succeed proposal provides a pathway to citizenship, like the President proposed, for 1.8 million DACA-eligible recipients, which is far more than President Obama ever offered. I mean, this is pretty incredible. What President Obama offered was DACA for 690,000 young people. This President has offered a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million. Some people may think that is far too generous, but the President made that offer expecting to get border security and these other provisions done at the same time. This legislation provides a real plan to strengthen our borders and utilize boots on the ground, better technology, and infrastructure. It reallocates visas from the diversity lottery system in a way that is fair, and it continues the existing family-based immigration categories until the current backlog is clear. I am proud to cosponsor this commonsense solution, not because it is perfect--no piece of legislation ever is--but what it does is it advances the issue in a way that can pass the Senate so the House can take it up and the President can ultimately sign it. That is the only way I know to get something accomplished here. Everybody needs to get to work. Our Democratic colleagues who voted to shut down the government over this issue now seem unprepared to meet the deadline they themselves insisted upon, even after the majority leader has provided a fair and open process for everybody to participate. So everybody needs to get to work. Our colleagues have known for a while that this was coming. They asked for this debate, but they have not yet filed any proposed legislation. I am wondering what the holdup is. Here is the bottom line. I am not interested in gamesmanship for gamesmanship's sake, political theater for political theater's sake, or ideas that can't become law. As the President said 2 weeks ago, the ultimate proposal must be one where nobody gets everything they want but our country gets the critical reforms that it needs. About 124,000 young people hope we can rise to the occasion. Just in my State alone, there are 124,000 DACA recipients who hope we can rise to the occasion and take advantage of the tremendous, generous offer President Trump has made in a bill he said he would sign into law if we were able to pass it in the Senate and in the House and get it on his desk. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to begin my remarks today by discussing a piece of bipartisan legislation that I have sponsored with our colleague, the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein. In all likelihood, this bill is not something you are going to see reported on in the evening news. It is rather obscure in its origins, but it is extraordinarily important, and I will explain that in just a moment. It is called the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, and it concerns another acronym--the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, known as CFIUS. It is the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. CFIUS is a multiagency panel headed by the Treasury Department, and Secretary Mnuchin chairs that panel. Its job is to vet foreign investments to determine if they pose a threat to our national security. I am an ardent supporter of free trade, and I strongly support more foreign, direct investment in the United States. Unfortunately, some of our adversaries--most notably China--have altered the strategic landscape and are not playing by the same set of rules. China has weaponized investment in an attempt to vacuum up our advanced technologies and simultaneously undermine our defense industrial base. As it acquires U.S. firms, technology, and intellectual property, as well as the know-how to put them to use, the risk is that the Chinese Government, which has its tentacles not only in state-owned Chinese companies but also in so-called ``private'' Chinese firms, will get its hands on these capabilities and use them against us. This has already been shown to have happened in a number of documented cases. Standing by and allowing our national security to be compromised through these continued transfers of certain dual-use technology and know-how to China would be highly irresponsible. That is why the CFIUS--the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States-- process needs to be updated and modernized. At its core, the bill I have introduced would expand the scope of reviewable transactions to more effectively address national security concerns. CFIUS's jurisdiction has not been updated in more than 40 years, and since that time, global threats like the one posed by China have grown in complexity and scope. China has studied our laws, and it has found ways to game the export control system and to evade CFIUS review. This bill has strong support, not just from the White House but also from Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, Commerce Secretary Ross, and the Attorney General of the United States, Jeff Sessions. It has also been endorsed by Secretary of Defense Mattis, as well as three of his predecessors, two former Directors of National Intelligence, and many others. In industry, major U.S. companies are starting to recognize the risks here, as well, and several have stepped up and endorsed this bill. However, there is a very small group of other U.S. firms that are actively opposing CFIUS modernization, having decided their bottom line is more important than our Nation's security. Unfortunately, they are starting to release some of their false claims about this legislation into the press that really don't hold water on further examination. And their own track records, when it comes to handing over sophisticated, dual-use technology and know-how to China, undercut the credibility of their arguments. I would call this a patriotism deficit on their part. In order to perpetuate the status quo and prevent statutory updates that are both urgent and necessary, this handful of firms and their proxies like to point to exaggerated, doomsday scenarios. These are typified by the words of one detractor, who recently stated that the new legislation would ``literally paralyze business.'' I urge all of our colleagues to study this legislation more and to resist these kinds of scare tactics and mischaracterizations. I urge them to consider the paralysis we would incur by not passing CFIUS reform. Progress would be stunted and our security jeopardized. We could see the erosion of our defense industrial base and that means jobs here in the United States going overseas because they are capable then of building this cutting-edge, dual-use technology in their home country and not having it built here in the United States. Despite the critics' scare tactics, the bill would not sweep up harmless business transactions with no ties to national security. That is not the point. But I do want to make that abundantly clear. Under the bill, there are reasonable safeguards to prevent this from happening. For example, CFIUS would be authorized to create a safe list of certain allied countries for which certain transactions are exempt from review. Under the bill, CFIUS would also be granted authority to exempt ordinary, routine transactions where other laws already address national security risks. The Treasury Department, as the lead agency for CFIUS, has stated an intent to use this authority to narrowly tailor the implementing regulations. The second thing to note is that existing alternatives, like multilateral export controls, are not an adequate substitute to what we are proposing in this bill. It is true that export controls work well in many cases, but they have inherent limitations and are not enough by themselves. We simply need a second line of defense, and that is a modernized CFIUS process. The CFIUS process and the export control system are designed to be interactive and complementary. In other words, this bill does not duplicate the export control system, and, in fact, for pure technology transfers, the export control system would remain the sole review mechanism. CFIUS wouldn't be involved in that at all. Finally, there is a concern that our bill could flood CFIUS with too much work, and they would be overwhelmed and would lack the resources and expertise to do the job. But our bill would help provide those additional resources and allow CFIUS to both charge a modest fee to help promote its self-sustainability and also submit a unified annual budget request covering all of its member agencies. Furthermore, the bill's own provisions guard against an unfunded mandate, with any expansion taking effect only after CFIUS determines on its own that the necessary personnel and other resources have been provided. Finally our bill exempts certain transactions that are done through ``ordinary customer relationships,'' ensuring that harmless, day-to-day activities don't have to be reviewed. In closing, I will say this: It is certainly appropriate to consider the potential impacts of this bill on foreign investment, but those effects shouldn't be considered in a vacuum. We must also ask what the impacts on our long-term national security will be if we do not take action. For example, in 10 or 15 years, will our troops still have the best equipment in the world? Our military superiority is not a birthright, and neither is our technological advantage over our adversaries. I would urge my colleagues to advance this bill and to study it and to help work with us to improve it. The time to modernize CFIUS is now. We must not allow ourselves to be the frog in the boiling pot of water, so to speak. We can't be blind to the growing risks. Madam President, on another matter, today we will begin to deliver on an important promise to the American people--debating an immigration solution for the young adults brought to the United States by their parents who now find themselves in limbo. Several weeks ago, our Democratic colleagues recklessly shut down the Federal Government to placate the extreme elements in their own party. The majority leader disagreed with this approach. He and the rest of my Republican colleagues urged them to abandon this shutdown ploy before it was too late, but they refused to listen, ignoring the majority of the Americans who were against this approach. The majority leader then promised what had been the plan all along--that would be to continue bipartisan discussions that would be followed by open debate on the floor. Shortly, this evening, we will take up a vote on a vehicle through which Members can offer their ideas on how best to solve this problem. It will be a process that is fair to both sides. Once we vote to adopt a motion to proceed, my colleagues and I will have the opportunity to have our proposals considered under regular order. In other words, they can offer amendments, debate on the amendments, and vote on the amendments. Amendments, as usual, will have a 60-vote threshold before they can be adopted. Sixty votes is what we need. What I am interested in is solving the problem, and that means not only a proposal that can get 60 votes but one that can pass the House and be signed into law by President Trump. That is simply critical. This should not be an exercise in futility or for political grandstanding purposes; this should be about getting a bill signed into law, which means it has to pass both Houses and has to be signed by the President. Today, led by Chairman Grassley of the Senate Judiciary Committee, a group of Members from this side of the aisle will put forth a comprehensive proposal--including the Presiding Officer--that centers around the four pillars the President has said he would like to see addressed. I think most people have been surprised--maybe ``shocked'' is a better word--at the generosity of the President's offer for the DACA- eligible recipients. Right now, there are 690,000 who have signed up, but the President's proposal would not only offer them legal status, it would offer 1.8 million eligible young people a pathway to citizenship--far more than President Obama ever offered. It provides a real opportunity for us to keep our commitments when it comes to border security--utilizing more boots on the ground, better technology, and additional infrastructure. It reallocates visas from the diversity lottery system in a way that is fair. It continues the existing family-based immigration categories until the current backlog is cleared and then changes to more of a merit-based system. I am proud to cosponsor this commonsense solution, which I think can pass the Senate and the House and be signed into law by President Trump. I know, too, that others have been working hard on their ideas, and I look forward to reviewing their work product. I urge my Democratic colleagues this week to remember their predecessors when it comes to immigration, which includes my fellow Texan Barbara Jordan. One of the great civil rights leaders of our time, she was the first southern Black woman to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. She also served as a chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. While serving in that role, she once said: For our immigration policy to make sense, it is necessary to make distinctions between those who obey the law, and those who violate it. I think that is a great principle to keep in mind as we begin to sort out this week's challenges. Although we all recognize the anxiety of DACA recipients who came to this country through no fault of their own and now face uncertain futures, at the same time, we must recognize that many Americans face certain plights too. They are dreamers, too, as the President has said. And we need to restore our legacy as a nation that believes in and applies the rule of law--indeed, equal justice under the law. Here is the bottom line: I am not interested in a futile exercise of gamesmanship or political theater or ideas that can't become law. As the President said 2 weeks ago, the ultimate proposal must be ``one where nobody gets everything they want, but our country gets the critical reforms it needs.'' More than 124,000 young people in my State hope we can rise to the occasion. Indeed, all 28 million of them hope we can work together in a bipartisan fashion not only to provide relief to the DACA recipients but also to restore our border security and to craft immigration laws that serve America's best interests. Again, one of the two pillars upon which our immigration system has been built is that we are a nation of immigrants. All of us at some point in our family came from somewhere else--almost all of us. But we are also a nation of laws, which distinguishes us from most of the rest of the world. It is those two great pillars--a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws--that need to be restored and need to be our focus. Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for regular order.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 11:30 p.m. this evening, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1892 with a further amendment; further, that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate vote on the motion to concur.

Mr. CORNYN. Regular order.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 12 a.m., the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1892 with a further amendment; further, that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate vote on the motion to concur.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to express my gratitude to my friend from Vermont for his service on the Appropriations Committee and working with us specifically on this particular legislation as it relates to the disaster relief aspect of it. Obviously, my State was devastated by Hurricane Harvey, but I must tell my friend, I have new empathy and understanding for how bound we are together as to what happens in one part of the country should be of concern to those of us in other parts of the country because eventually, sooner or later, disasters are going to visit all of us. It is good news that the majority leader was able to announce yesterday that we reached a compromise on government funding through not just the end of this fiscal year but next year as well. This agreement ensures that our Armed Forces will finally have the resources they need. My colleague and fellow Texan Mac Thornberry, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, along with the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, said it best. They said: This budget agreement is indispensable for our national security. Without it, our military would not be able to defend our Nation. Hard stop. Let me repeat that. This budget agreement is indispensable for our national security. Without it, our military would not be able to defend our Nation. I think, of all the demands made on the taxpayer dollars that are sent to Washington, DC--and many of them have a lot of merit, some more than others--but I have to say, if you were going to ask me to prioritize how do we appropriate money here in Washington, DC, national security would be job No. 1. In addition, the funding bill will provide support for our veterans, those who have worn the uniform but have now left the military service, as well as their families, and it will clear the way for new investment in our Nation's infrastructure. I am grateful to the majority leader for his hard work during this series of long and delicate negotiations. We all know it could not have been easy. Even more than that, I am glad, as I indicated at the outset, that the funding package finally sends disaster relief to Texas--disaster relief that had been long promised but had been delayed time and time again. Today, the Senate will be considering supplemental appropriations for disaster aid that affects the victims of Hurricane Maria, Hurricane Harvey, as well as the wildfires and mudslides out West. Last August, Hurricane Harvey made its landfall near Houston, along the gulf coast. When that storm hit, communities like Port Arthur, Beaumont, Rockport, and Victoria were crippled, not to mention Houston, where most of the major media covered, one of the largest cities in the United States. The National Hurricane Center's official report released last month confirmed what those who lived through the storm already guessed: It was the most significant rainfall event in the United States. During a period of about 5 days, the skies opened up and dropped 50 inches of rain--50 inches of rain. The report called Harvey ``unprecedented'' and ``truly overwhelming.'' As someone who witnessed the devastation firsthand, I can say, with certainty, that those are not exaggerations. It was an event that happens perhaps once every 1,000 years. At least 88 people lost their lives. Many more crashed their vehicles, were electrocuted, were unable to receive medical services, and could not attend school or missed work. They spent last fall tearing the sheetrock out of their homes or their businesses. Since the time of the storm, Congress has appropriated roughly $35 billion in Federal aid through two separate emergency bills. Working closely with the majority leader, my Texas colleagues and I were able to increase the first disaster relief bill last fall by adding money for community development block grants. This ensured a larger downpayment for Texas to rebuild and repair. Thank goodness we were able to get that money then--because of the delays we have seen up until today in additional disaster relief for Hurricane Harvey. Once that money was appropriated, we worked with Dr. Carson, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, to accelerate the allocation of these funds, which he graciously did. Congress followed up by passing a tax relief bill for individuals and small businesses that sustained financial hardships as a result of the hurricane. Finally, we worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to identify and prioritize key projects for coastal protection to mitigate the impact of future storms. This is not the last hurricane that will hit the coast of Texas or Florida. We need to prepare for the future as well. In spite of that work, tremendous challenges remain. That is why we kept fighting month after month, and today marks the culmination of our efforts. The supplemental appropriations bill we will consider today includes $89 billion in disaster relief--$8 billion more than the House passed last December. It ensures that Texas will have increased access to the pool of community development block grant dollars, and it provides funding and flexibility to ensure that the Army Corps of Engineers are able to carry out necessary projects in the State. It includes funding to help Texas address lingering transportation issues resulting from Hurricane Harvey and allows us to move forward on flood mitigation projects like the Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay. Finally, it includes a provision--this is important to the agriculture community in my State--to make cotton an eligible commodity under the farm bill safety net. That is really good news for the folks in West Texas, the largest cotton-growing area in the largest cotton- growing State in the Nation, and they have been waiting a long time. Some of them lost bales of cotton or even entire gins because of all the water they sustained as a result of the storms. I applaud the Texas congressional delegation for taking the first step and passing a disaster supplemental appropriation last year, and I appreciate Governor Abbott and the Senate Appropriations Committee, including Senator Leahy, for working with us to strengthen the bill in the Senate over the last month or so. Helping Texans recover and rebuild has been my top priority. I am now urging my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle in both Houses, to pass this critical relief bill as soon as possible. I thank Chairman Cochran, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, for his leadership steering the Appropriations Committee, which has its work cut out for it and has certainly done yeoman's work to date. I thank the junior Senator from Florida and my other colleagues-- particularly Senator Cruz, my colleague in the Senate--who have fought with us side by side for relief from the numerous disasters that have affected Florida, Texas, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and of course the wildfires and mudslides out West. Remembering Lieutenant General Daniel James III Mr. President, on a separate and unrelated note, I wish to recognize the passing of retired Lt. Gen. Daniel James III. He served as the first African-American Adjutant General for my home State, as well as the first African-American Director of the Air National Guard. He was the son of Daniel ``Chappie'' James, Jr., a fighter pilot who was the first African-American Air Force general to pin on four stars. A highly decorated command pilot, with approximately 4,000 flying hours, many of those in combat, General James completed two Active-Duty tours in Southeast Asia. He was also inducted into the Texas Military Forces Hall of Honor. Since his burial is taking place today in Arlington National Cemetery, I wish to let all those in attendance know I am thinking of them. I know Lieutenant General James was a mentor to my friend General Nichols, the current Adjutant General, but he was a role model for us all. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 10:30 p.m. this evening, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1892 with a further amendment; further, that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate vote on the motion to concur.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, regular order.

Mr. CORNYN. Regular order.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 11 p.m. this evening, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1892 with a further amendment; further, that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate vote on the motion to concur.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 12:30 a.m., the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1892 with a further amendment; further, that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate vote on the motion to concur.

Mr. CORNYN. Regular order.

Mr. CORNYN

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