Floor Statements

Madam President, we learned yesterday that Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was stepping down from her position as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I just got off the phone with her and thanked her for her service.

When the Department was first established more than a decade and a half ago, we knew that this position would be a very tough one, especially in the aftermath of 9/11--the terrible terrorist attacks. We knew that protecting the American people from the growing threat of terrorism was job No. 1. The truth is that this job has only gotten tougher as time has gone by. While counterterrorism remains a central focus for the DHS, the number of missions it is responsible for, both on the ground and in cyber space, has multiplied to include a myriad of natural and manmade threats.

Since Secretary Nielsen has taken this job, she has led the Department's response through flooding and wildfires, foreign attempts to infiltrate our election infrastructure, and the growing humanitarian crisis we continue to see unfold along the southern border.

Above all, Secretary Nielsen has been a fierce advocate for the men and women at the Department who carry out these diverse missions on a daily basis. With more than 240,000 DHS employees around the world-- many of them in Texas--keeping them mission-ready is one of the most important responsibilities the Secretary has, and it is one she has taken very seriously.

I have had the opportunity to work closely with the Secretary on a number of issues but in particular on attempting to find commonsense reforms to secure our border and close loopholes that are being exploited in our immigration system. I have been consistently impressed by her deep knowledge of the issues and of her steadfast commitment to finding solutions.

America is better off for her service, and I hope we will continue to find good people like the Secretary who will be willing to contribute their service to the betterment of our country. I thank her, and I wish her well in the next chapter of her life.

Madam President, the Senate Finance Committee will continue with hearings tomorrow on the high cost of prescription drugs. I hear a lot about this back home in Texas. Whether they are seniors who struggle to cover the costs of the prescriptions they have been taking for years or will be taking for the rest of their lives or whether they are parents who face tough financial decisions to make sure their children receive the medications they need, their stories can be heartbreaking. I have no doubt that all of my colleagues here in the Senate and in Congress hear the same things back home from their constituents.

A February Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that nearly 80 percent of Americans believe that the cost of prescription drugs is too high, and nearly 30 percent of adults, because of the cost, report their not taking their medications as prescribed. In other words, they are self- rationing, and it can be dangerous.

Without intervention, I don't expect these prices to drop anytime soon. In fact, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has estimated that between 2018 and 2027, consumers could expect to see their prescription drug costs increase by an average of 6.1 percent each year. That is faster than the increase in doctors' visits, hospital stays, or any other aspect of healthcare.

What exactly is behind these high prices? That is exactly what the Senate Finance Committee is going to find out. Over the last few months, we have been looking at every step a drug takes when it is en route from research and development to the bottle in your medicine cabinet, and we have been asking a lot of questions along the way. We have heard from patients, health economists, and pharmaceutical companies.

We will be talking tomorrow mainly to pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, who are the intermediaries between the manufacturers, consumers, and health plans. They negotiate with manufacturers to secure rebates, which should lower the price of the prescription drugs for patients, but many times they do not. The size of a rebate could mean the difference between a drug's being covered by your insurance or not.

There are a lot of financial incentives in healthcare and prescription drug pricing that we need to peel back, like one would the layers of an onion, so that we will know exactly what is going on. What I find so surprising is that for as big a role as PBMs play, we know surprisingly little about how they operate.

The terms of these rebates, including dollar amounts and incentives, are cloaked in secrecy. Since there is no paper trail or standard procedure on how these rebates or discounts are determined, it is nearly impossible to follow the money. I have always told people that I am not sure why prescription drug pricing is so complex. I don't know whether it is by design or if it is unintentional, but it certainly exists. This lack of transparency for the consumer is concerning, as it should not take an advanced degree to figure out

where your money is going when you buy your prescription drugs.

I am eager to question these PBMs tomorrow and to hopefully begin to remove the shroud of secrecy surrounding these rebates and prescription drug prices. Finding out what has led to these rising prices is critical to ensuring that Americans are able to receive the drugs they need at prices they can afford.

Madam President, on a final matter, several families were in Washington this last week to advocate for the release of their loved ones by two rogue regimes. One of the men being held captive in Syria is Austin Tice.

There are many ways you can describe Austin. He is a seventh- generation Texan, a decorated Marine Corps veteran, an Eagle Scout, and an award-winning journalist. Yet, to Austin's family, he is so much more than his impressive list of accomplishments. He is their beloved son, brother, and friend whom they have not seen or heard from for 6\1/ 2\ years.

In the summer of 2012, Austin was getting ready to enter his final year of law school at Georgetown University. Instead of spending the summer working at a law firm, he chose to do something few were brave enough to do at the time, which was to report on the Syrian civil war from the inside. Austin always had a passion for storytelling, and he was frustrated by the lack of reporting on the impact this vicious violence was having on the Syrian people.

In demonstrating his courage and tenacity gained during his time in the Marine Corps, Austin got on a plane that May to fly to Turkey. Over the summer, his photos and stories illuminated the human cost of this conflict until one day in August of 2012 his stories abruptly stopped. The following month, a shocking video surfaced that showed Austin's having been blindfolded, bound, and surrounded by unidentified, armed men. Austin was just a few days from returning to the United States when he was abducted, and to this day, we have no specific information about his captors or the conditions for his release.

Austin's family--particularly Marc and Debra, his parents--has worked tirelessly over these last 6\1/2\ years to locate Austin and to bring him home. I have had the privilege of meeting with them multiple times, and I can only imagine what an impact this has had on them and on their entire family. I have tremendous respect for Marc, Debra, and their family. I wonder if others could stand up under this pressure as well as they have, lo these many years, during their steadfast advocacy for their son's safe return. Yet they do have a sort of serene confidence that comes across when you talk to them in that one day, Austin will return home.

Once again, I join the Tice family in calling on Austin's captors to release him immediately. I also continue to call on the administration to make sure that Austin is kept in mind when there are any discussions with the Syrian Government and future decisions to remove U.S. forces from Syria. I assure Austin's family that our resolve has not weakened; it has only grown stronger. I will do everything possible to press for his release, and I will continue to urge the administration to do the same.

Mr. President, I have 6 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 4, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 4, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: David Bernhardt, of Virginia, to be Secretary, and Susan Combs, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary, both of the Department of the Interior, and Aimee Kathryn Jorjani, of Wisconsin, to be Chairman of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

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 Thursday, April 4, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 3, 2019, at 2:45 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Daniel P. Collins, and Kenneth Kiyul Lee, both of California, both to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, James Wesley Hendrix, and Mark T. Pittman, both to be a United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, Sean D. Jordan, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, Ronald D. Vitiello, of Illinois, to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, Virgil Madden, of Indiana, to be a Commissioner of the United States Parole Commission, and Nick Edward Proffitt, of Virginia, to be United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia, Department of Justice.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during

the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 3, 2019, at 2.45 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing.

Subcommittee on Aviation, Operations, Safety, and Security

The Subcommittee on Aviation, Operations, Safety, and Security of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 4, 2019, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. President, over the last 2 years, since the beginning of the Trump administration, our Senate Democratic colleagues have brought our work to a crawl over judicial and executive branch nominees. It is as if they have frustration and surprise over the election of President Trump in the first place and still haven't gotten over it. This is another way in which they have sought to undermine the administration--to deny the President the staff necessary to populate the various executive branch Agencies as well as the judiciary.

The way you do that in the Senate is by stringing out the amount of time it takes to confirm nominees who ordinarily would have been confirmed by consent or by voice vote--certainly, not by taking 3 days or so at a time to generate a confirmation. It is not because these nominees are unqualified or even controversial; it is simply because this is how the resistance operates at a time when President Trump is President of the United States. These nominees are being used as a weapon to slow the work of the Senate and, really, to deny us the floor time in which to do other things that we might be doing that would be beneficial to the American people, and they have been running this play repeatedly over the last 2 years.

In February of 2018, President Trump nominated John Ryder to serve on the board of the Tennessee Valley Authority. The work of the TVA is undeniably important, but this isn't the sort of high-profile job that typically leads to a contentious nomination. In fact, these board positions are normally confirmed by voice vote.

Mr. Ryder was, by any account, well qualified for the job. He received unanimous support from the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Under normal circumstances, he would have been quickly confirmed by the entire Senate. Our Democratic friends, instead, decided to delay and delay and delay some more and forced the Senate to hold a cloture vote on the nominee, which caused him to sit in limbo for 400 days.

I wonder how many Americans who want to serve their country in some positions that require Senate confirmation can afford to put their lives on hold and wait for 400 days or more just for the Senate to get around to doing something that should be somewhat of a routine job.

With Mr. Ryder, in the end, the irony would almost be funny if it were not so pathetic. Ultimately, he was confirmed by voice vote. For 400 days, we waited to achieve the result we all knew we were to have all along if Mr. Ryder were to hang in there long enough. For 400 days, the TVA waited for the vacancy to be filled without there being an end in sight, and for 400 days, Mr. Ryder and his family waited and waited and waited with uncertainty. Sadly, he is not alone. He is part of a long list of nominees who have received similar mistreatment.

There is one Texan, a friend of mine, who had to wait even longer. Susan Combs is a fourth-generation rancher from Big Bend who has led an impressive career in both the public and private sectors and has gained the respect of virtually every person who has crossed her path.

She served as a member of the Texas House of Representatives, then as the first female agriculture commissioner of Texas, and later served as the Texas comptroller of public accounts.

When she was nominated to be the Department of the Interior's Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, I was thrilled, and I was happy to introduce her before her committee hearing. Less than a month after she was nominated, Susan was unanimously approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Again, I was hopeful that her nomination would sail through since it, clearly, was not a controversial nomination. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

Here we are, 631 days later, and Susan Combs has still not been confirmed. Again, it is not because she is not qualified for the job or that she is a controversial nominee. Just the opposite is true. This is simply the way our Democratic colleagues have sought to deal with nominees from this President.

If Senate Democrats were delaying well-qualified nominees like Susan to make sure they had adequate opportunity to debate their nominations, we wouldn't have any disagreement with that, but we know, by their actions, that they will stop at nothing to bring the work of this body to a screeching halt, particularly during the time of the Trump administration.

Over the last 2 years, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have forced votes on nominees who in previous years would have sailed through the Senate. During President Trump's first 2 years, we held more than five times the number of cloture votes on nominees as we did during the same time for the last six Presidents combined. So to call this unprecedented is not an exaggeration, and the long list of vacancies is growing.

Our government is suffering, and the services that we provide to the American people are being obstructed as well. The Senate's duty of advice and consent is important, but it is not our only job. We have a lot of other things we are supposed to do here, and they are falling by the wayside while we try to work through these, largely, noncontroversial judicial and executive branch nominees.

Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues' delay tactics have brought us to the point at which we really don't have many other options. We have tried negotiations. We have been told they will be happy to limit postcloture debate time but that, oh, by the way, they will not agree to that unless it starts in the year 2021. This is hardly a principled position. This is simply about resisting President Trump, his administration, and this administration's ability to do the job the President was elected to do.

What we have proposed is something that will not make nominations easier to be confirmed. The process will be largely the same, and the vote threshold will remain the same. It will simply keep us from wasting valuable time that we should be spending on debating and voting on other important policies, not widely supported nominees.

This certainly isn't as radical a change as many of our Democratic colleagues are presenting it to be. In January of 2013, current Majority Leader Schumer and then Majority Leader Harry Reid led the charge to make similar changes in order to process President Obama's nominees.

At that time, Republicans were in the minority. What did we do then? Well, we weren't exactly fans of President Obama's, but he had just been elected to his second term, and suffice it to say that while we were hoping for a different outcome, we weren't about to obstruct his ability to populate and staff the various Departments in the Federal Government. We didn't obstruct nominees. We didn't sulk. We didn't try to prevent the President

from filling these nominations throughout the entire government. This is our government. In fact, we took the opposite approach. Along with several of my Republican colleagues, I joined Democrats in voting for a resolution that would speed up the consideration process for lower level nominees.

I have to give Senator Alexander, the Senator from Tennessee, a lot of credit for negotiating that in the first place. But it has now expired, and we are back to the status quo before that temporary change went into effect. Like the changes we are talking about today, it didn't change the threshold for nominees; it just made the process a little more efficient. It received votes from 78 Senators on a bipartisan basis. So that is why it is a real head-scratcher that we find ourselves where we are today. Unfortunately, I think we know what the answer is. This is part of the anti-Trump resistance. Unfortunately, it is not playing out just in social media or on TV; it is playing out right here in the Senate--what used to be known as the world's greatest deliberative body.

When our colleagues Senator Blunt, chairman of the Rules Committee, and Senator Lankford of Oklahoma introduced this resolution, I was surprised that our colleagues across the aisle wouldn't do what we did back in 2013. Back then, all but one Member of the Democratic caucus voted for the resolution--again, something very similar to what we are proposing today--but yesterday, they refused to even proceed to debate a similar change. They could have offered amendments. They could have made changes to the resolution where they thought it fell short. But no--their commitment to obstruction remains. It is clear they don't really oppose the resolution; they oppose supporting a resolution under the President of another party. Indeed, they oppose supporting this resolution under President Trump.

When 78 Republicans voted for a similar change in 2013--as I said, we didn't vote for President Obama, but we understood the importance of protecting the Senate as an institution and allowing our valuable work to continue on behalf of the American people. I wish our colleagues across the aisle had that same commitment today.

Just as I supported this modest change in 2013, I will support it again today. This will allow us to make meaningful progress in confirming the long list of pending nominees without impeding our ability to do our other work, like legislation.

In particular, there are four district court nominees from Texas I am eager to get off the Senate calendar and on the Federal bench.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I have 7 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 3, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on pending legislation.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 3, 2019, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Indian Affairs

The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 3, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Enhancing Tribal self-governance and safety of Indian roads.''

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 3, 2019, at 2:45 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Reauthorization, of the SBA's access to capitol programs.''

Subcommittee on Seapower

The Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 3, 2019, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 2, 2019, at 2:30 p m., to conduct a hearing.

Subcommmittee on Intellectual Property

The Subcommittee on Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 2, 2019, at 2:45 p.m., to conduct a hearing, ``Trailblazers and lost Einsteins: Women inventors and the future of American innovation.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 11 a.m., Thursday, April 4; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Calabria nomination.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

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

Madam President, we have spent a great deal of time in my time in the Senate talking about immigration and the situation along the southwestern border. My State has 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico, so obviously this is very personal to me and my constituents who live and work along the border.

We have been caught up in a lot of semantics and more than a little politics in Washington, DC, debating what is a wall versus a fence, what is a crisis versus an emergency--just some of the semantics we have been caught up in--but it doesn't take a rocket scientist or an expert to see there are a lot of problems occurring at the border today. I hope, if there is one thing we can all agree on, it is that there is in fact a problem that needs to be solved at the border, whether you want to call it a crisis like President Obama did or whether you want to call it an emergency like President Trump.

Last week, the Secretary of Homeland Security sent a letter to Congress detailing the record number of apprehensions along the southern border. Secretary Nielsen noted that Border Patrol was apprehending between 50,000 and 60,000 a month late last year. Last month, it was 76,000, the highest in a decade. At the time of her letter, she said we were on track to interdict nearly 100,000 during the month of March--so almost essentially double from late last year until this coming month. Unsurprisingly, Customs and Border Protection personnel are not equipped to handle these record numbers.

Forty percent of the Border Patrol's manpower is spent processing migrants and providing care and transportation. These are, by and large, asylum seekers from Central America. In fact, while the Border Patrol, our primary law enforcement agency providing border security, should be securing the border, many of them are processing unaccompanied children or family units, handing out diapers and juice boxes instead of doing the job they are trained to perform. They have been taken off the patrol line to do this kind of work, leaving areas of the border

vulnerable to exploitation by the drug cartels. One way the cartels use this huge volume of humanity coming across the border is to distract the law enforcement agencies from doing their job interdicting the drugs that are poisoning tens of thousands of Americans. We know 70,000 Americans died of drug overdoses last year--about half of those from opioids, including synthetic fentanyl and heroin--90 percent of which comes from Mexico.

The amount of people coming across now is so overwhelming that the El Paso Border Patrol Sector has temporarily shut down its highway checkpoints in the interior so agents can help process these individuals. Most of our Members may not realize, we not only have Border Patrol working at the border but also in the interior at checkpoints on major highways because frequently what will happen is people are smuggled through or drugs are smuggled through, and they have to go through checkpoints for a double check, at which time a lot of drugs and a lot of illegal immigrants are discovered.

Additionally, detention facilities are at or over capacity. These are relatively small because they are built to house single adults for a short period of time. The record surge of children and family units combined with the impact it has had on processing time has put a serious strain on their resources. As a result, the Department of Homeland Security has been forced to release families and adults from custody.

I was on a radio program last week in San Antonio, my hometown. It was said Border Patrol is so overwhelmed, they are essentially just putting people on buses and shipping them into the interior of the State and the country, not even processing them.

I have heard from officials at DHS and throughout the ranks of the Border Patrol that in order to keep up with this pace, they need our help. They need more personnel so law enforcement agencies can respond to the crisis, secure the border, and keep our country safe, as well as adequately and efficiently processing individuals who illegally cross the border. We also need additional facilities to house illegal immigrants in custody so we don't engage in the failed catch-and- release policy, which is just another pull factor to encourage more people to come. If they know they are not going to be detained and they are going to be released, that is an incentive for them to come and join this wave of humanity coming across the border. We should be able to enforce the law and properly care for migrants in custody, but inadequate resources are limiting DHS's ability to do both.

Ours is a compassionate country. We are a nation of immigrants. Everybody--almost everybody came from somewhere else at some point in their family history, but the only way we are going to be able to maintain that compassion and generosity, when it comes to immigration, is by bringing some order out of chaos.

Many illegal immigrants know we are compassionate and generous, and they will take full advantage of the gaps in our border security and flaws in our immigration laws. The cartels--the criminal organizations that get rich moving people from Central America, across Mexico, into the United States--know for sure because they are exploiting those gaps and flaws in our immigration laws. It is not just the sheer numbers of people crossing the border that is concerning, it is the makeup of the people coming across.

We used to see primarily single adult males arriving from Mexico, and our current detention facilities reflect that, but now, because of the gaps and flaws in our immigration laws that are being exploited, people coming across are family units and unaccompanied children from Central American countries who almost uniformly claim asylum. That means they have to appear in front of an immigration judge at some point to have their claim assessed and adjudicated.

While there absolutely are legitimate families coming to our country for legitimate reasons, that is not the case for all the 36,000 family units apprehended last month alone.

Individuals crossing illegally know about the loopholes in our laws, as I said, and they know how to exploit them. For example, in 1997, the Flores settlement agreement determined that the Department of Homeland Security can only detain unaccompanied children for 20 days before releasing them to the Department of Health and Human Services, which in turn places them with sponsors--usually family members in the interior of the United States. Then they are given a notice to appear at an immigration hearing at some point in the future, but because of the backlog of cases, 98 percent of them don't show up. While this was unquestionably well-intentioned at the time, it has turned into a pull factor for illegal immigrants hoping to game the system, as well as the transnational criminal organizations that get rich engaging in this sort of trade.

In 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals expanded the Flores agreement, effectively applying the settlement to family units and not just unaccompanied children. So now, rather than single adults arriving at the border alone, they are bringing children with them so they can pose as a family unit. They realize they can bring a child--any child-- and pose as a family unit so they will be released within 20 days.

Sadly, Flores is not the only loophole being exploited. Another well- intentioned piece of legislation that is being abused is the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act or TVPRA. This legislation limits our ability to return unaccompanied children from countries other than Mexico or Canada to their home country.

These loopholes are an attraction or pull factor and encourage parents to send their children on the dangerous journey to our southern border alone or sometimes with a single parent or sometimes with a smuggler or human trafficker posing as a parent.

This isn't a symbiotic relationship, where the smuggler gets an honest day's pay and the migrant gets a comfortable ride to the United States. These smugglers are called coyotes for a reason; they are predators.

Children are being kidnapped to serve as a free ticket into the United States. They are often abused or raped along the way, and many arrive at our border in terrible health. We simply cannot allow these practices to continue with no response by Congress. We need to close the loopholes that are being used to unlawfully enter and remain in the United States and provide much needed protection for these vulnerable children.

If a pipe burst and caused your kitchen to flood, you wouldn't start by cleaning up the mess; you would start by fixing the pipe first. If we want to have any sort of impact on the massive numbers of people crossing our border, which will only grow, we have to look not just at the problem but at the root cause.

I would urge all of our colleagues on the other side to stop viewing this through a purely political lens. This is not a question of Trump wins, you lose or Trump loses and you win. I am afraid that defines a lot of our politics in Washington today. That is a terrible mistake and a disservice to the people we represent, and it is an embarrassment to an institution which is supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body.

We need to view this together as the humanitarian crisis it is-- President Obama called it that--and view it as a problem that will only continue to grow without our intervention, which it has. We need to view it as an urgent issue that requires our cooperation and, yes, our compromise.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in 2017, I said on the Senate floor that we needed to come together to help rebuild in the wake of Hurricane Harvey in the Houston area and that our work was not complete and more work needed to be done. That, unfortunately, still is true today.

It is true also for the damage caused by other natural disasters during the same timeframe that was appropriated by Congress but has not yet found its way to the intended beneficiaries. Although we voted to send billions of dollars to help Texans still reeling from Hurricane Harvey, some of those funds are still needlessly caught up in bureaucratic redtape.

This is not just a phenomenon that affects my State. It affects all of our States. This is not acceptable to me, and it isn't acceptable to the people I represent--all 28 million of them--and it shouldn't be acceptable to Members of the Senate.

This storm ravaged the Texas coast and was the largest rain event in American history, with parts of Southeast Texas seeing 60 inches of rain over about a 5- or 6-day period. It destroyed people's homes, their businesses, and our communities.

In the wake of the storm, we all pulled together in Congress, in an unusually bipartisan manner, to provide billions of dollars in disaster aid. Like I said, it wasn't just for Texas. It was for Florida, Puerto Rico, for wildfires out in California, and other places that suffered from natural disasters.

The dollars we appropriated, and were signed into law by the President, have helped Texans get back to some sense of normalcy, and I am grateful to my colleagues for working together with us to make that happen. What has not been helpful, however, are the unnecessary delays on the part of the Office of Management and Budget in getting the roughly $4 billion in mitigation funds into the hands of State and local communities that desperately need them.

I have searched in vain in the Constitution for where the Office of Management and Budget has the power to veto appropriations bills passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. I can't find it. Yet they are still the impediment to the execution of Congress's intent to get the money to the people who need it.

The intent of Congress was crystal clear in the February 2018 disaster supplemental, when we appropriated about $12 billion of community development block grants for disaster recovery.

As I said, the undue delay is unacceptable, and I am filing an amendment to the disaster relief that is on the floor of the Senate this week to ensure that these funds and other like funds are properly disbursed.

Last month, Governor Abbott, Senator Cruz, and I wrote a letter to the OMB to stop stalling, but so far all we have heard is crickets.

The amendment we will file will start a timer on when the Federal Government must release funds appropriated by Congress. It will give the government bureaucracy up to 90 days to get the money untangled from all the redtape and to get it to the communities that desperately need it. This 90-day rule wouldn't just apply to this particular block of funding; it would apply to any funds that are now being withheld by the Office of Management and Budget that Congress appropriates to these States.

As I said, last time I checked, Congress had the power of the purse, not the Office of Management and Budget. I don't know about the rest of my colleagues, but I am not OK with letting OMB dictate when and how duly appropriated funds are released to the intended beneficiaries.

The disregard of those who are still struggling to rebuild and prepare for future storms by the bureaucrats is appalling. They know the kinds of hardships my constituents are facing, and they know that Hurricane Harvey will not be the last hurricane to hit Texas. It is time to do what is right by our State and local communities who have seen their livelihoods rot in a fleet of floodwater.

It has now been more than a year since President Trump signed a bill that would have sent roughly $4 billion to Texas. Imagine what could have been accomplished with that money in the meantime. They could have repaired wastewater treatment facilities that haven't been fully restored. It could have led to important economic revitalization projects in decimated areas. They could have even relocated or elevated damaged facilities to prepare for the next storm. But, no--those projects are still on hold because the OMB has refused to release the funding.

The 2019 hurricane season is fast approaching, and it is critical we get work done on long-term projects to protect my State and the Texas coast against future storms.

It is difficult to plan for the future with the resources we need being caught up in bureaucratic limbo. We have been waiting to get to the place where before Harvey and after Harvey isn't such a stark difference.

With the inclusion of my amendment, the clock will start ticking on the Office of Management and Budget to do its job and ultimately release these hurricane recovery funds. Texas communities have waited long enough.

Border Security

Mr. President, I want to draw attention to another group of people who need our help, and those are the officers and agents of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Yesterday, Commissioner McAleenan announced that Customs and Border Protection is facing an ``unprecedented humanitarian and border security crisis all along our Southwest border,'' and he provided some alarming statistics.

Yesterday morning, CBP had more than 13,000 migrants under their care. Under normal circumstances, a high number is 4,000. They consider 6,000 to be a crisis, and now they have more than double that. Yesterday, the Commissioner said that we are at a ``breaking point'' along the border.

Frankly, because the American people aren't acquainted with some of the details, they may think that CBP can easily handle 13,000 people in their custody on a given day, but, unfortunately, that is not the case.

CBP's detention facilities are relatively small, built for the short- term detention of single adults. The current immigrant surge from Central America is primarily of children and family units and has put these small facilities at overcapacity levels. Processing times have slowed due to the large number of people being processed and the lack of Border Patrol personnel to process them.

As the Chief of the Border Patrol has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, this is intentional on behalf of the transnational criminal organizations that are responsible for transporting people from Central America to our borders. This is a moneymaking proposition. If you can charge $5,000 or more a head for every person you deliver to our border, that is a big, big deal. These people are not just involved in transporting immigrants. They are engaged in trafficking of human beings for sex or involuntary servitude, and they are also engaged in trafficking drugs.

I will remind all of us that last year, 70,000-plus Americans died from drug overdoses--70,000 Americans died from drug overdoses last year--according to the Centers for Disease Control. A substantial portion of that was part of the opioid crisis, not just prescription drugs but also synthetic fentanyl as well as heroin. Ninety percent of the heroin that comes into the United States comes across the U.S.- Mexico border. As President Obama himself said in 2014, this is truly a humanitarian and security crisis, but it is on steroids today.

On Monday, CBP had the highest totals of apprehensions in more than a decade, and on Tuesday, they broke that record. Daily averages for border apprehensions are higher than we have seen at any time since 2006.

Last month, CBP apprehended 76,000 people in 1 month on our southern border--the highest monthly total in over

a decade. Yesterday, Commissioner McAleenan, announced that, in March, they are on track to beat that record with 100,000 apprehensions along our southwest border. That is 76,000 apprehensions in February and an estimated 100,000 in March.

As a result of the surge, because the Border Patrol has to do something, 40 percent of the Border Patrol's manpower is now spent processing immigrants and providing care and transportation. In other words, they are not engaged in their primary mission, which is border security, because they are busy handing out juice boxes and diapers to children, as well as processing the immigrants who are providing other transportation.

The Border Patrol simply doesn't have the resources, nor should it be expected to have the resources, to handle this crisis and perform their primary duty, which is to protect our border. We know that detention centers are at or over capacity, and local charities and nongovernmental Agencies are strained, as well, and all of our border communities are being overrun by humanity.

Recently, Senator Cruz and I were down at the Sarita checkpoint to name that checkpoint after a heroic Border Patrol agent who was killed by two illegal aliens. We were approached by the chief of police from McAllen--somebody who is well respected in law enforcement circles in our State--who said that because the Border Patrol is simply unable to process all of these people, and they are being released into those communities or put on a bus and sent to places like San Antonio, they are increasingly worried about public safety. That is notwithstanding the fact that many of our border communities are extraordinarily safe, at least on our side of the border. If you go on the Mexican side of the border, they are some of the most dangerous cities in our hemisphere.

This is having a profound impact on our local communities, on the men and women of the Customs and Border Patrol. Frankly, it should be an embarrassment to us here in this country that we haven't dealt with this in a more timely and more effective way.

Because the cartels have figured this out, people crossing the border today are largely families and unaccompanied minors because of the special way they have to be processed and because of a consent decree called the Flores decision, which says you can't detain them for more than 20 days. That is not enough time to get them in front of an immigration judge in order to adjudicate their asylum claim, so they are released into the interior of the United States. Guess what. Overwhelmingly, they don't show up for their court hearings because they realize they have beat the system. The cartels know that because of the money they make. They are exploiting these vulnerabilities in our laws and in our infrastructure. The only people who can fix that are Congress and the President, working together in a bipartisan way.

I know we have had a big debate over border barriers--walls, fences, you name it--but, frankly, you could build all the barriers you want along our southwest border, and it will not stop this flow of unaccompanied minors and family units because, frankly, they are showing up at the border, and they are turning themselves in. So we need to act.

Two weeks ago, Ms. Nielsen, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said: ``The situation on our southern border has gone from a crisis, to a national emergency, to a near system-wide meltdown.''

Our Democratic colleagues have called this a fake emergency. They have opposed treating this crisis for what it is. It is even more than an emergency; it is a total system failure, and the only people who can fix it are Congress, working with the President. I am not sure how much longer our Democratic colleagues could be in denial when we see this flood of humanity coming across in higher and higher numbers every day.

The issue is staring us in the face. The numbers confirm what we have said all along: This is a border security and humanitarian crisis.

Secretary Nielsen made an important point that our communities, our members of law enforcement, and the immigrants themselves are paying the price for our inaction.

We have heard it from people at the border who know how to fix the problem, and we need to listen. They have told us time and again that it will take a combination of technology, physical infrastructure, and boots on the ground. It will also take legislative action to fill the gaps in our laws that we know exist and are being exploited by the cartels.

I want to commend the men and women of Customs and Border Patrol for working around the clock in a thankless job but in an important job. Frankly, I am embarrassed that they haven't seen more support by the people who represent them in Congress.

We have sent them out on a losing battle unless we can work together here in Congress to give them the resources and the legislative fixes they need.

I want to assure these dedicated men and women that we are trying, but we need their help to talk to their elected Representatives here in Congress. We need Ms. Pelosi to consider this the same humanitarian crisis that President Obama identified back in 2014, when he called it a humanitarian and security crisis. By any measure, it has gotten much, much worse. We need to give this crisis the serious attention that it deserves.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have 4 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 28, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Department of Energy's Atomic energy defense program.''

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 28, 2019, at 10 a.m., to

conduct a hearing on the nomination of David Bernhardt, of Virginia, to be Secretary of the Interior.

Committee on Environment and Public Works

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 28, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Examining the Federal response to the risks associated with per and ployfluoralkyl substances.''

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 28, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Daniel P. Collins, and Kenneth Kiyul Lee, both of California, both to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, James Wesley Hendrix, and Mark T. Pittman, both to be a United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, Sean D. Jordan, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, Wing Chau, to be United States Marshal for the District of Rhode Island, and Ramona L. Dohman, to be United States Marshal for the District of Minnesota.

Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate had a significant vote. Senators made their voices heard on the Green New Deal, and after a lot of grandstanding from those Senate Democrats who initially rushed to support this proposal, not a single one voted for the proposal.

However, my Republican colleagues and I didn't vote present. We don't believe that is what our constituents sent us here to do. Instead, we voted against the socialist grab bag of policies that would set us back an estimated $93 trillion and would bankrupt the State of Texas. To be clear, voting no on the Green New Deal isn't a referendum on the issue of lowering carbon emissions or finding cleaner energy; it is saying no to the litany of far-left proposals that would leave American families footing the bill to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars each.

The Green New Deal promised things like free higher education. You might have thought this was really about the environment; well, it was a grab bag of government handouts and takeovers. It also included Medicare for All, which means that if you have employer-provided health insurance, you couldn't keep it. Even President Obama said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. But not now--not with this new, radical group of Democrats who now say: Forget that promise. We are going to take what you have, even if you like it.

There, of course, was the guarantee of jobs. I noted yesterday that the only thing missing from the Green New Deal is free beer and pizza for everybody.

It has been estimated that implementing the full list of the Green New Deal's promises would cost the average American family $65,000 a year, which is well over what many Americans make annually.

These ludicrous proposals were pitched as a way to uplift the middle class and create jobs, but in reality, they would have undone the economic gains we made these past 2 years under the Trump administration. We could say goodbye to the record-low unemployment levels and the growth we have been seeing. What middle-class American do you know who could afford an extra $65,000 each year to pay the Federal Government for the litany of Green New Deal line items, such as tearing down every building and replacing it with a green version?

Even the liberal AFL-CIO's energy committee had this to say:

We will not accept proposals that could cause immediate

harm to millions of our members and their families. We will

not stand by and allow threats to our members' jobs and their

families' standard of living to go unanswered.

This is the AFL-CIO.

Instead of the Green New Deal, we should follow the Texas model of innovation. But it is not just Texas; there are some great private sector initiatives taking place that deal with this concern about CO2 emissions in a much more practical, rational, free market way. We have a thriving energy sector in Texas, as the Presiding Officer knows, and it isn't stifled by overregulation. That is one reason it is thriving.

The Green New Deal would force us to rely on foreign energy sources because we wouldn't be able to produce enough here in the United States to keep the lights on. But with investment in innovative solutions and new technologies, we can ensure that our country can remain energy independent and deal with legitimate concerns about the environment.

I applaud our colleagues who voted against this legislation to ensure that the American people won't have to pick up the tab for the far-left wing agenda of our Democratic colleagues. Conversely, I stand ready to work on real, achievable solutions and to find ways to reduce emissions and lessen our environmental footprint without overregulating and overcharging.

Deer Park, Texas

On another note, most people across the country hadn't heard of Deer Park, TX, until last Sunday. They were probably more familiar with nearby Houston, TX. But last Sunday morning was when the first reports came rolling out that residents were forced to shelter in place when a chemical tank at the Intercontinental Terminals Company, or ITC, caught fire.

ITC's tanks hold petrochemical liquids and gases used to produce gasoline--all highly flammable and hazardous. As many could have predicted, but certainly no one had hoped, the fire spread quickly to a nearby tank. By Wednesday, seven tanks were aflame. Firefighters fought for 3 days to extinguish the massive flames, and just when it seemed as if the fire was under control, it flared again last Friday, burning through 11 storage tanks in total. A massive fireball and billowing plumes of smoke could be seen for miles. This didn't stop, as new tanks caught fire, forcing schools and businesses to close and residents to rightfully question their safety.

Unfortunately, the story doesn't end there. By the end of the week, as ITC drained chemicals from the remaining exposed tanks, the containment wall surrounding the tank farm burst. Foam used to fight the fires and contaminants leaked, forcing a portion of the Houston Ship Channel to close and bringing a new round of health risks associated with the release of airborne and liquid toxins.

Earlier this week, officials from ITC said that cleanup crews had removed more than 33,000 barrels of an oily mixture from the ship channel. That is 1 million gallons, which is more than I can even imagine.

The chemical fire and resulting chemical spill not only brought grave health concerns to those who live and work around Deer Park and pollution to the air and environment, it also ground businesses in the region to a halt. Because of the chemical spill, nearly 7 miles of the Houston Ship Channel closed for 3 days, cutting off this booming area of our economy from the waterway and delaying shipment of goods up and down the ship channel. Some estimates show that the region's oil and gas and petrochemical sectors lost $1 billion in revenue as a result of the closure. This ship channel sees hundreds of shipments a day, with tankers and freighters moving various products and goods up and down the shoreline to businesses surrounding the Houston area.

The effects from the closure of facilities and companies in the area will require a costly and lengthy recovery. Folks along the ship channel in Southeast Houston will also be concerned about health consequences until we can find out more answers.

The ITC's tanks contain chemicals commonly used in the production of gasoline--xylene, naphtha, pyrolysis gasoline. Naphtha, in particular, can irritate and burn the nose and throat when inhaled. When exposed to fire, naphtha can produce poisonous gases. The health effects of these chemicals are of grave concern, but it is not just the short-term effects--the irritation and burning--that are concerning; contact with these chemicals can potentially have lasting, long-term effects, making it vital to discern the exact level of exposure to these chemicals caused as a result of the fire.

It is important that we get to the bottom of this, and I am proud that our local, State, and Federal officials have quickly jumped into action. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the Environmental Protection Agency, local responders, and the Coast Guard were all on the scene quickly and have been working around the clock since the start of the first fire. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, have opened investigations into the fires. The Environmental Protection Agency, along with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, are conducting continuous air quality checks.

I appreciate the swift action by local, State, and Federal agencies to protect my constituents in the region and conduct investigations to ensure that we can prevent this type of event from ever occurring again. I will monitor those investigations closely as they progress and will ensure they have the resources they need in order to complete their work.

Sometimes when people hear us talk about regulation, they act as if our side of the aisle believes that no regulation is appropriate, which is entirely false. It is important to have regulations to protect the public safety of the American people and particularly in places around tank farms like this one in Deer Park. I think it is very important that any existing regulations--that we make sure those regulations and laws are enforced.

As part of this investigation, I hope we will find out that there were no violations of existing regulations and laws, but if there were, then the people responsible should be held accountable. I am not going to prejudge at this early point before the investigation takes place whether there is any legal responsibility or whether anybody did things they should not have done consistent with the laws and regulations that do exist, but I will say that once the investigation is complete, if there were violations of regulations designed to protect the public safety or laws passed by Congress and signed by the President, that I will be the first to demand there be accountability for violation of those regulations and those laws.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, last month our colleague, the Senator from New York, the Democratic leader, said:

So when the Republican leader says he wants to bring the

Green New Deal resolution up for a vote, I say: Go for it.

Bring it on.

Well, here we are. Senators will soon have a chance to vote on the Green New Deal, and we have already seen a lot of confusion and more than a little waffling from our friends on the other side of the aisle, some apparently confused on exactly what they should do on a resolution they themselves proposed.

When it was announced, the senior Senator from Massachusetts quickly pledged her support, as did the junior Senator from New Jersey. But I find it pretty curious that some of our colleagues who were among the first to join these Senators and voice their support for this proposal are now among those saying they will simply vote present--present.

Even more interesting is one of the bill's authors, the junior Senator from Massachusetts, who called this vote ``sabotage.''

Ordinarily, when proposing a piece of legislation around here, one is tickled pink when the majority leader schedules it for a vote, but somehow some of our colleagues will vote present--neither yea nor nay-- and others claim it is sabotage. As the vote approaches, we have seen many of our Democratic friends running for the hills, trying to provide space between them and this issue.

The Green New Deal is chock full of utopian ideas but completely devoid of concrete plans to implement any of its overreaching policies. Even the name is a little disorienting because the Green New Deal is not just a new radical environmental policy; it is that, but it is more. It encompasses much more than that with Medicare for All, free college, and guaranteed jobs. I might add, parenthetically, you might as well throw in free beer and pizza too.

What has been billed as an economy invigorator and job innovator in order to lift up the middle class is really anything but. The bottom line of this proposal is a solution in search of a problem. It is about a message; it is not about finding solutions to real problems.

Maybe it is useful to take a step back to look at what we have already done in this Congress to help the middle class and to generate job growth. Over the last 2 years, we have worked to roll back burdensome regulations left over from the previous administration and make much needed reforms to our outdated Tax Code--the first time in 30 years.

My constituents in Texas have taken notice, and I have heard from many of them who have seen an increase in their take-home pay, thanks to the tax reform bill, for example. Small businesses in Texas have been able to help give their employees more benefits. For example, Village Foods and Pharmacy in Bryan, TX, said that because of the tax reform bill, they were able to provide employee bonuses and implement a 401(k) retirement program, something they were previously unable to do. In San Antonio, my hometown, Hinee Gourmet Coffee said they used their tax cut savings to give their employees raises, as well as to increase employee benefits and upgrade their equipment.

The unemployment rate in Texas remains at 3.8 percent, near its historic 43-year low and on par with the national average. The Lone Star State has added 268,000-plus jobs since February 2018. If you go to Midland, TX, and the Permian Basin, the unemployment rate is 2.1 percent. Labor is tight, and employers are looking for workers because the economy is booming, and they need good people to fill these unfilled jobs.

I think my State is proof positive that when the government gets out of the way, the economy can flourish. That is why we have seen so many people flooding into Texas to take advantage of the low taxes and abundant job opportunities. It is also why I find it so ironic that a few weeks ago one of the Green New Deal creators, the Congresswoman from New York, chose South by Southwest in Austin to peddle her socialist agenda, because if implemented, the Green New Deal would wipe out most of this prosperity. It would cut job growth; it would dramatically increase taxes and cripple our red-hot economy.

One group has estimated that in order to achieve just one portion of this radical agenda--a net-zero emissions transportation system--the annual cost to families would be about $2,000. That is just for part of the Green New Deal.

Add in another Green New Deal proposal, and it gets more expensive-- to

the tune of $26,000. No, I am not talking about somebody's annual paycheck. I am talking about the estimated cost for families to implement their universal healthcare program that would wipe out all employer-provided coverage and bankrupt Medicare. Families in Texas and across the country would be on the hook for more than $65,000 a year in order to finance the Green New Deal's expensive and extravagant promises.

Unfortunately, the list of expenses doesn't stop there. The Green New Deal calls for a move to 100-percent clean and renewable energy in just 10 years. Right now, Texas generates about 19 percent of our energy from renewables. We like renewables in Texas, but there needs to be a baseload that provides energy when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. The Green New Deal has no plan for how it expects States to actually scale up their number from the 19 percent Texas currently generates from renewables to this 100 percent--no plan at all.

Without a plan, Texans can forget about electricity that is affordable and reliable; instead, they need to ready themselves for electric bills that could jump to as high as $3,800 a year.

Instead of focusing on a grab bag of government mandates and overreaching regulations that we know would bankrupt our country, we need to follow existing models that point a way toward success. We know what works, and, if you will forgive me, I would suggest the Texas model is a good one. Our model values collaboration and partnership with the private sector in order to create affordable and cutting-edge solutions. We are all about innovation and experimentation. That is how we come up with better, smarter, more efficient, and more effective ideas to deal with problems. It is a model based on innovation that has been the backbone of our successful economy. The last thing we need is another Federal Government wet blanket that puts a damper on all of the great innovation and activity that has caused our economy to boom.

Texas is really the best example of this with companies like NET Power and NRG Energy, which are leading the way in innovation. NET Power, which has a plant in La Porte, outside of Houston, has developed a first-of-its-kind power system that generates affordable electricity from natural gas with zero emissions--zero emissions.

Our State is also proof positive that one can promote innovation while harnessing the traditional power of oil and gas development. In other words, we can be pro-energy, pro-innovation, pro-growth, and pro- environment. But if we implemented the Green New Deal, we wouldn't be talking only about the added costs and expenses to families; hundreds of thousands of people would lose their jobs and our export economy, which helps fuel our booming economy, would sharply decline. Our energy independence would evaporate, but our need for and reliance on natural gas, coal, and oil would remain. It would focus our efforts back on being more dependent on foreign energy sources rather than generating them domestically. I am sure Russia, for example, would be happy about that.

Some have called the Green New Deal the road map for solving climate change, but to be a road map, you have to have clear points on how to get from point A to point B. You actually need to be clear-eyed about the problem you are trying to solve, and you need details in terms of how you actually hope to get to where you want to go. But this proposal is a pie-in-the-sky, unattainable end destination with no details of how to arrive there.

So as the Senate prepares to vote on the Green New Deal, I ask that we keep in mind that our constituents didn't send us here to Washington to vote present. That is a copout. Voting present? Give me a break. People ought to vote their conviction. They ought to vote yes or no. To hide behind some copout vote like present is just to take the easy way out, and it is sad that appears to be the road many of our friends across the aisle are about to take, rather than doing the job they have been sent here to do and working with us to come up with actual, tangible solutions that can become law. I know that if we just tried a little bit harder and avoided these sorts of ideological talking points, we could actually solve more of these problems and ours could remain a strong economy. We could create jobs. We can maintain our energy self-sufficiency here in America, and we can deal with environmental emissions concerns. We can find solutions to those problems, but one big power grab by the Federal Government that ruins the economy, bankrupts us, and, frankly, doesn't really make things better is a bad deal for Texans, and I believe a bad deal for Americans.

Unsurprisingly, I intend to vote no, and I hope my colleagues will join me in doing the same.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.