Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have 10 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 Tuesday, March 26, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 26, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Chairman's housing reform outline.''

committee on finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 26, 2019, at a time to be determined during votes, to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Andrew M. Saul, of New York, to be Commissioner of Social Security, Gordon Hartogensis, of Connecticut, to be Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and Courtney Dunbar Jones, of Virginia, to be a Judge of the United States Tax Court.

committee on foreign relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 26, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Ukraine's progress and Russia's malign activities.''

committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 26, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Making electronic health information available to patients and providers.''

committee on the judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 26, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Examining guidelines for State action.''

committee on veterans' affairs

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 26, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

subcommittee on cybersecurity

The Subcommittee on Cybersecurity of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 26, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

subcommittee on manufacturing, trade, and consumer protection

The Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the

Senate on Tuesday, March 26, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Small business perspectives on a Federal Data Privacy Framework.''

subcommittee on east asia, the pacific, and international cybersecurity

policy

The Subcommittee on East Asia, The Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Policy of the Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 26, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to hearing entitled, ``U.S. policy towards North Korea after the second summit.''

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

Mr. President, as the world now knows, yesterday evening Attorney General Barr sent a letter to Congress on the investigation by the special counsel. In his letter, Attorney General Barr confirmed the intelligence community's assessment that through a coordinated disinformation campaign and hacking operations, Russia sought to interfere with the 2016 election. Any attempts by a foreign government to interfere with our Democratic processes, successful or unsuccessful, must not be taken lightly.

Though the special counsel's investigation was very targeted and specific, Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on which I serve, continue our work to more closely examine the matter as well as the broader threats posed by foreign interference as part of our oversight responsibilities. Although this was the major focus of the special counsel's investigation, it was not the most anticipated portion of Mr. Mueller's report.

After reviewing the special counsel's findings, the Attorney General concluded that the Trump campaign did not coordinate with the Russian Government in their efforts to influence the election. Based on their reaction since General Barr released his letter, it is clear the partisans who will never be satisfied with any results of an investigation will not be appeased by this report from the special counsel or General Barr's summary of Mr. Mueller's conclusions.

I hope our colleagues will trust the dedicated team of public servants who investigated this matter for the special counsel and now allow Congress to move on so we can deal with other challenges facing the American people. The worst thing we can do is get bogged down in a relitigation of all these issues over which we have no real authority because Congress's role is to conduct oversight for purposes of determining whether the laws have been faithfully executed or whether changes in the law need to occur. Obviously, the special counsel's role is entirely different. It is a criminal investigation

to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of a violation of a criminal law that would warrant presentation to a grand jury, charging, and then a trial. Congress's role is demonstrably and decidedly different.

I would like to thank Mr. Mueller for conducting his investigation with the utmost professionalism. For those of us who have seen him in action over many years, we expected nothing different. I would also like to thank Attorney General Barr for promptly communicating his conclusions with both Congress and the American people. Throughout Attorney General Barr's confirmation hearings, he stressed his intent to release as much information as possible, and he is now in the process of delivering on his word.

I agree with those on both sides of the aisle, as well as the President, who want the Mueller report to be released publicly. As much of the report as can be released, and consistent with existing law, should be made public so the American people can read it for themselves, but I also agree with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham, that we also need to understand better how we got to this place.

We need to look at the decisions made by the leadership in the Department of Justice, the FBI, the intelligence community, and the Obama White House during the time in which this counterintelligence investigation was initiated against President Trump while he was still a candidate, and why, contrary to the practice as testified to by Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a defensive briefing was not given to the Trump campaign so they could know that the Russians were trying the doors and the windows and trying to get into the organization.

We know now, from Mr. Mueller's report, they were unsuccessful in establishing a connection and collusion, as the word has been used, but we know the investigation that initially was started, ultimately, came up emptyhanded and resulted in this narrative, which prompted the appointment of a special counsel and this long investigation that Mr. Mueller has now completed. So we need to understand that better as part of our oversight responsibilities, particularly those of us, such as the Presiding Officer and I, who are on the Judiciary Committee who have explicit oversight responsibility for the Department of Justice as well as the FBI.

Mr. President, on another matter, we will soon have an opportunity to vote on the Green New Deal. Since this resolution was introduced last month, there has been a lot of confusion about exactly what is in it and how much it would cost. Generally, those aren't great questions to leave unanswered when you are trying to pass something in the Senate. We need more information, to be sure.

When the resolution was released, it made some lofty promises: achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions, renovating or replacing all buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, and providing higher education, healthcare, and housing for everybody. Missing, of course, were some of the details about how these goals would be either feasible or affordable: no plans on how to incentivize the research and development of new, cleaner energy technologies; no specifics on how much it would cost to retrofit every existing building in the country; no estimates about how the long list of new entitlement programs would be funded. The confusion only grew stronger when one of the authors of the resolution released a background summary that made even more promises, again, with no assurance of any plan that would actually be feasible or could be implemented. The Congresswoman from New York claimed that the Green New Deal would even include a government- subsidized life for those who are unwilling to work. She said we will build high-speed rail that will make airline travel unnecessary, which came as a surprise to our colleagues from Hawaii, and she said we will replace every internal combustion engine in every vehicle. As you might imagine, there was a long list of unanswered questions.

The one thing we know about the Green New Deal is, it would be a bad deal for Texas. Our State has always embraced an ``all of the above'' attitude when it comes to energy. Our people don't expect handouts, but they do expect opportunities that only come with economic and individual freedom. They don't want to be told what the government will permit them to do or force them to do, and they certainly don't want to be taxed to death to support people who aren't willing to work. We believe the government that governs least governs best in a nation of laws, especially when it comes to our economy.

Texas keeps its taxes, government spending, and regulations at a rational minimum to give people and small businesses that create jobs the freedom to dream big and let the free market provide. We know it works. Lower taxes and less burdensome regulation draw businesses to our State. We are one of the fastest growing States in the Nation because people are literally voting with their feet. It is because we have seen jobs created and opportunities for everyone willing to work.

Our unemployment rate is at or below the national average. I believe, in Midland, TX, in the Permian Basin, it is 2.1 percent. They can't find enough able-bodied people to perform the good, well-paying jobs that exist. We know we lead the Nation in exports, fueling both the State's economy as well as that for the entire country.

As I just alluded, the major part of our State's success is our thriving energy industry. Something that will not come as a surprise to most people is the fact that Texas leads the country in both oil and natural gas production, but what may surprise you is the fact that we are the No. 1 producer of electricity from wind energy. One-fourth of all U.S. wind energy comes from Texas. There is no doubt that Texas's position as the largest energy-producing State has secured our position as an economic powerhouse, but if the authors of the Green New Deal get their way, oil, gas, and all hydrocarbons will all be off-limits, and the results will be disastrous without anywhere else to turn for an alternative because renewables simply aren't prepared to fill that gap. Hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs, exports will decline, and without a reliable alternative power source, you can expect to spend most of your day in the dark. Instead of talking about plans that would hurt my constituents in Texas and bankrupt the entire country, let's have a serious conversation about real solutions.

A few weeks ago, our friend and colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, joined me on a tour of the NET Power demonstration plant in La Porte, TX. NET Power has developed a first-of-its-kind system that generates affordable energy from natural gas while producing zero emissions. These innovative carbon capture technologies are what our future should look like. If American companies don't produce them first, well, we know somebody else will. So in America we need to invest in new technologies that can take our most reliable and affordable energy sources and make them cleaner.

When Senator McConnell announced his intent to bring this bill to the floor, things got a little strange in the Senate. In my experience, if the majority leader says he will bring something you authored to the floor, you are thrilled--but not with the Green New Deal. The junior Senator from Massachusetts who introduced the resolution in the first place referred to this announcement as ``sabotage.''

Well, clearly something is wrong. I believe it is important for us to have a discussion about smart ways to reduce emissions and lessen our environmental footprint, but the way to do that is not through heavyhanded regulations or unrealistic goals to eliminate the fuel sources we need, nor is it about throwing in socialist government power grabs that only appeal to a radical wing of the other party, which is basically a distraction from the real issues we should be discussing.

The Green New Deal is bad for America, bad for Texas, and I urge my Democratic colleagues to stop this ideological race to the left and start working with us on practical solutions that actually have a chance to become law. I will vote no on the Green New Deal resolution, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.

Madam President, when President Trump declared a national emergency over the crisis along our southern border, it was immediately met with expressions of concern--some, in my view, illegitimate; others, quite legitimate.

As I have said in the past, I will repeat again that this--what we are doing here today--is no one's first choice, but it is useful to recall how we find ourselves at this point today.

Of course, when it comes to funding, when it comes to appropriations, Congress holds the purse. That is why,

each year, the Congress receives the President's budget request for the upcoming fiscal year, just as we did earlier this week.

Even though, in the President's budget, he outlines his priorities, my experience in the Senate is that most Presidential budgets, while they are an expression of the President's priorities, are dead on arrival. It then falls to us, in the Senate and the House, to look at his request and to work on a compromise budget and appropriations process and fund the operations of the Federal Government.

This process is arduous, it is time-consuming, and it is often frustrating, but it is the way the system is supposed to work. As all Americans can attest, what we have seen over the last few months looks like something very different. The refusal of Democrats in the House and the Senate to engage in negotiations on border security funding led us to a 35-day government shutdown.

Despite the clear message from border security experts, despite seeing the humanitarian crisis at the border, described by President Obama in 2014, get many times worse, our Democratic colleagues decided to play politics instead of dealing with the problem.

We heard the Speaker of the House call border barriers immoral. The minority leader here in the Senate said that there would be no additional money for physical barriers along the border. They know, just as I know, that back in 2006 and 2008, the Secure Fence Act was passed with broad bipartisan support, including support from then- Senator Barack Obama, then-Senator Hillary Clinton, and Senator Chuck Schumer, currently the Democratic leader in the Senate, who now feels that this President should not get any additional money to fund border security measures that the President believes are an important response to the crisis we see at the border.

My preference would be for the normal appropriations process to be used, but when your negotiating partners refuse to take a seat at the table, normal goes out the window. Our colleagues across the aisle left the President with few options to fund what he believed was so important for the Nation's security, and that is what led us to this situation.

Enter the 1976 legislation, the National Emergencies Act. What the President did is ask his lawyers to look at what other authority, under congressionally passed laws signed by previous Presidents, might he have to access additional funds, and his lawyers pointed to the 1976 National Emergencies Act, which has granted Presidents, since that time, broad powers to reprogram funding previously appropriated by Congress.

This idea that somehow this is an unconstitutional act by this President is simply wrong. Congress has given the President this authority. They may regret it today or they may disagree that this is an emergency or they may disagree with the way the President wants to spend the money to secure the border, but, clearly, the President is using authorities the Congress has previously granted, not just to him but to all Presidents since 1976.

My father liked to remind me growing up--one of the things he always told me is that hindsight is always 20-20. Our predecessors did not anticipate the fights we would be having today, which are largely contrived and unnecessary. We should be working together to solve these problems, not engaged in a zero-sum game of political brinkmanship. That is what brought us to where we are today.

I think it is appropriate to look at what Congress did in 1976, and in a prospective sort of way, ask ourselves: Have we delegated too much authority to Presidents since that time? There are literally 123 statutory authorizations that could be invoked under the National Emergencies Act--123 times that Congress has said a President, upon the declaration of a national emergency, can reprogram money that Congress has appropriated--123 times. That was a shock not only to me but, I dare say, to virtually all of our colleagues here in the Senate.

Many of these statutory grants of authority are exceedingly broad. They cover everything from the military to public health to Federal pay schedules. With these broad authorities already part of the law, the emergency powers provision could be viewed as a fail-safe for an agenda that the administration--an administration alone--is pushing. Let's say, hypothetically, that a future President decides there is a need to declare a national emergency over climate change. Maybe they decide this is a way to enact the Green New Deal being pushed by some of our colleagues across the aisle.

Considering the potential scope and scale in which these powers could be abused in the future and this overdelegation of authority that Congress has done 123 times, I believe we should take a look at the National Emergencies Act, once we vote today, and have a fulsome debate and discussion about whether this is really the sort of delegation of powers that the Founding Fathers intended when they said that distinct separated power should be given to each branch of the government: the legislative, the judicial, and the executive branch.

It is clear that the President is operating within the authority Congress has given to him. You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it, but it is clear the President is operating within the authority Congress delegated to him. Rather than talking in circles and debating that fact, I think our discussion should focus on the structure of emergency powers moving forward.

I believe there is a need to rein back in some of the authority that Congress has delegated to presidents just as a constitutional concern, as a constitutional matter, which is why I am cosponsoring a bill which has been introduced by our colleague Senator Lee which gives Congress a stronger voice in processes under the National Emergencies Act.

That bill will now be referred to the Homeland Security Committee. Chairman Johnson has said he will give that bill a hearing and then a markup. Then I would expect, at some point, that legislation will make its way to the Senate floor where we will have a debate and a vote.

The proposal would allow the President to maintain his statutory powers to declare an emergency, but that declaration would end after 30 days unless Congress affirmatively votes to extend it. This would maintain a President's ability to provide funding during national emergencies while restoring Congress's proper authority under article I of the Constitution. I think this is an honest and important effort to hopefully prevent us from ending up in this predicament in the future.

The real cause of where we are today is just politics--Ms. Pelosi's deciding that building any border barrier was immoral, after Democrats and Republicans had not made that a particularly political decision in the past. In fact, it had been bipartisan that we did support it as one tool in the toolbox for Border Patrol, in addition to technology and personnel, some physical barriers.

Rather than scolding the President of the United States for exercising statutory authority that Congress has already given, we should try to work together to solve these problems rather than engaging in the kind of political brinksmanship that brings us here today. We should fix--should it be the will of Congress--this massive delegation of authority not just to this President but to any President since 1976.

I have to disagree with our colleague from Colorado and others who suggest that what is happening at the border is not serious. By the way, I haven't heard any of them suggest any alternative solutions. Perhaps instead of Border Patrol securing the border we ought to have police officers at the border directing traffic, waving people through to their chosen destination. I think that would be a terrible mistake, but that seems to be the only alternative our friends across the aisle are offering to this humanitarian crisis and emergency at the border.

Last month, 76,000 people illegally crossed the border and were apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, making this an 11- year high. So rather than 76,000 people in 1 month, which our Democratic colleagues don't seem to think is a problem, let's say next month it is 150,000 or 300,000 or 600,000. As long as we have this attraction for people from other countries to come to the United States, and if they pay the fee to the criminal organizations that transport them

here, they will successfully make their way into the United States. They are going to keep coming.

It is clear this problem isn't going away, and it is overwhelming the communities along the border as well as the Federal Government's ability to deal with it.

I remember what the Director of Customs and Border Protection said. He said: When the Border Patrol is handing out diapers and juice boxes to children coming across the border, the drug cartels will exploit that and move their poison into the United States. I will just remind my colleagues that more than 70,000 Americans died of drug overdoses last year alone. A substantial amount of it was synthetic opioids in the form of fentanyl, but a lot of it had to do with heroin that had made its way from Mexico into the United States because 90 percent of the heroin that comes into the United States comes from Mexico. So while the Border Patrol is handing out diapers and juice boxes, the drug cartels are moving in heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamine across the border into our Nation and getting rich in the process.

We know border security is complicated, and that it is not just about security, it is about facilitating legitimate trade, travel, and commerce. Last year alone, there was $300 billion worth of commerce that took place just at Texas ports of entry with Mexico--$300 billion. That supports an awful lot of American jobs.

The terrain in the 1,200-mile border between Texas and Mexico varies significantly. What works well in one sector does not work well in another. What I continue to hear from my constituents, including elected officials at the border, is that if this is the Border Patrol telling us what they need in order to succeed to do the job we have asked them to do, we are all in, but if this is just politics and elected officials in Washington trying to micromanage the solution along the border, we are skeptical. This is what they tell me, and I don't blame them.

I think we need to take action to adequately fund our border security missions, and I hope our discussions in the coming months will be more productive than they will be this year.

I will vote against the resolution of disapproval today and encourage my colleagues to instead ask my colleagues to focus their energy on reforming the legislation that got us into this situation to begin with.

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, March 14, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 14, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Financial stability oversight council nonbank designation.''

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 14, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 14, 2019, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President's Fiscal year 2020 budget.''

Committee on Finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 14, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President's Fiscal year 2020 budget.''

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 14, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing.

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

Mr. President, the news cycle is relentless here in Washington, DC, and between cable TV and social media, it is pretty hard to remember what happened an hour or a day or a week ago, but it is important to talk about the context surrounding today's circumstances, and that is why I wanted to come talk a little bit more about what is happening on our southern border.

Twelve hundred miles of Texas is common border with Mexico, and we are at ground zero when it comes to what comes across the border and what happens at the border. Frankly, it is a lot more complicated than most people seem to appreciate, at least by the way they talk about it.

Not only is the border a source of economic energy for our country, by trade and legitimate travel, we know our border communities themselves are among the safest in the country. Their crime statistics are basically equivalent to that of any other comparable city in any other part of the country, but what happens across the border is a very different story.

Some of the most dangerous cities in Mexico are right there along the border, primarily because they are still controlled by the cartels that operate what are called plazas where they essentially take tolls or shake down people who are trying to come across for whatever purpose it might be, whether it is people coming across to find a job in the United States or drug traffickers or human traffickers--people selling women and children for sex or human servitude.

So it is a complicated scenario, to be sure, but one thing I can tell you is, there is a humanitarian crisis at the border that was not manufactured by the Trump administration. In fact, the denial in which a lot of our Democratic colleagues find themselves I think is more related to the fact that President Trump is the one currently identifying it rather than the facts on the ground because, in 2014, President Obama called what was happening at the border a humanitarian crisis, and that did not seem to be a controversial comment at the time, but now that President Trump is calling this a crisis and emergency, people, unfortunately, can't take off their partisan jersey, and many call it a fake emergency or fake crisis, which is demonstrably false.

Let's go back to 2014. That year, about 68,000 families were apprehended at the southern border, an overwhelming number. This, coupled with an unprecedented surge of unaccompanied children, led President Obama, as I mentioned, to call this a ``growing humanitarian and security crisis.'' That was President Obama. He was right, especially about the growing part.

Let me just pause for a moment to talk about why are we seeing children and families coming across the border as opposed to adult men.

We detained about 400,000 people coming across the border last year, but we are seeing more and more unaccompanied children and family units coming across the border. The simple fact is, the criminal organizations that exploit this vulnerability at our border have figured out what our laws provide for and where the gaps are, and they realize, if an unaccompanied child or a family unit comes across the border, current law requires us to separate the adult from the child-- because we don't want to put a child in a jail or detention facility-- and place them, through Health and Human Services, with a sponsor, ultimately, in the United States.

Once they get a sponsor in the United States, then it may be years, if ever, before their asylum claim is actually heard in front of an immigration judge. The fact is, in the vast majority of circumstances, that asylum claim will be granted--or I should say mooted by the fact that people don't show up months and years later for their hearing in front of the immigration judge but simply melt into the great American landscape.

In this case, the cartels win, and American border security loses because our Democratic colleagues simply refuse to work with us to make commonsense fixes to this broken asylum system which allows the cartels and children and family units to essentially exploit the vulnerabilities in our laws and successfully make their way into the country.

That is what they call a pull factor. There are push factors because of the violence occurring in countries in Central America, but the pull factor is the fact that if you try to come to the United States as an unaccompanied

child or a family unit, you will likely succeed. So it should be no surprise to any of us that these numbers continue to grow.

Back when President Obama talked about this being a growing humanitarian and security crisis, there were 68,000 family units apprehended at the border. In the last 5 months alone this year, there have been more than 136,000 family units apprehended along the southern border.

Historically, we witness the highest numbers of apprehensions in the spring and summer months, so I anticipate things will not get better-- they will only get worse--in the months ahead. My State and our border communities are certainly feeling the brunt of these growing numbers.

We also know, as the Border Patrol has told us, that the cartels that move illegal drugs into the United States frequently try to flood the border with migrants, these family units, in order to distract law enforcement personnel from the heroin or the methamphetamine or the synthetic opioids, mainly fentanyl, that come across our border and poison so many Americans.

We know that last year alone, more than 70,000 Americans died of drug overdoses. A substantial amount of that was opioids, including the synthetic fentanyl. Frequently, the precursors come from China through Mexico and into the United States, and 90 percent of the heroin used in the United States comes from Mexico. This is a serious matter, and we should not turn a blind eye to it.

Compared to this time last year, family unit apprehensions have grown 200 percent in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. That is McAllen, TX, and that area. They are up more than 490 percent in the Del Rio Sector, and, most staggering, in the El Paso Sector, family unit apprehensions have increased more than 1,600 percent.

For those who believe this is somehow a fake emergency or not really a crisis, I would ask them: If those numbers were doubled or tripled, would they believe there is a crisis or an emergency? I believe there is now, and I believe those who deny that a crisis exists are simply turning a blind eye to it for, unfortunately, mainly partisan purposes.

Despite what many on the left claim, there is indeed a humanitarian crisis on the border. In addition to the waves of Central Americans arriving by the thousands, we are also trying to stop the flow of illegal narcotics, as I said, and combat the disgusting practice of human smuggling.

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard from U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan, who leads the more than 60,000 professionals working to provide security and a safe place for trade to come across our ports of entry. Many of these employees of Customs and Border Protection call Texas home and work alongside of State and local law enforcement to protect us and our neighbors from the dangerous goods and, yes, persons trying to cross the border illegally.

Of course, the C in CBP stands for Customs, and they are also charged with promoting the safe and efficient movement of legitimate trade and travel. In Texas, given our proximity to the border, given our location, that is a big task. Our State is the No. 1 exporter in the country, with exports last year totaling more than $315 billion. That is exporting things that we grow, livestock that we raise, and manufactured goods that we make. We sell those to Mexico, our biggest customer far and away.

Folks who live and work along the southern border are proud of the strong bonds our country has with our southern neighbor and the dynamic culture in the region. Many have family on both sides of the border, which makes it an extraordinarily unique place in our country. Thanks to the dedicated Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials, flourishing businesses, and a vibrant community, the border region is thriving.

I was on the telephone with one of my constituents from McAllen, TX, yesterday. He said: Our cities on the border are safe. You would think, from what you hear from the national discussion and debates in Washington, that people have to wear body armor in McAllen, TX.

I said: Well, part of the problem is that people are confusing the dangerous flow of goods and people across the border with actual violence occurring on the border.

Just to reiterate, our border communities on the U.S. side are some of the safest in the country. On the other side, for example, Juarez, which is on the other side of the border from El Paso, has historically been one of the most dangerous places on the planet, as well as Tamaulipas, which is the Mexican State right opposite of McAllen-- again, a hot bed of cartel activity and violence.

But U.S. cities, I would say, are relatively safe, just like any other comparable city in the United States. So people perhaps not knowing better or, maybe, perhaps just trying to make a better story out of the facts, and I think conflate these ideas. But there is no doubt that the drugs, the human trafficking, and the masses of humanity coming across our border are creating a crisis at the border of a humanitarian and security nature.

Of course, between the ports of entry--and the ports of entry are where the legitimate trade and travel come across our international bridges--there are vast swaths of land that are relatively unpatrolled. The closest Border Patrol agent could be miles away--something human smugglers know and they exploit. These aren't good Samaritans leading immigrants to a better life. They are criminals who put profit before people and have zero regard for human life.

According to a 2017 study by Doctors Without Borders, 68 percent of the migrants reported being victims of violence during transit from Mexico or through Mexico, and 31 percent of the women surveyed had been sexually abused during the journey. These are the migrants who turn themselves over to the tender mercies of these criminal organizations. Sixty-eight percent have been victims of violence, and 31 percent of the women have been sexually assaulted. The journey these families face on their way to the United States is a harrowing one, and some of them don't make it. We have to continue working to stop anyone even considering this journey from attempting it.

I still remember going to Falfurrias, TX, which is away from the border but is a Border Patrol checkpoint. What happens is that the coyotes will bring people across the border, put them in stash houses in sickening and inhumane conditions, and, then, when the time is right, put them in a vehicle and transit them up our highway system. The Falfurrias checkpoint in Brooks County is one of the ones that checks people coming through on their way into the mainland.

But what happens is that the smugglers will tell the migrants: Get out of the car before the checkpoint. Here is a milk carton or jug full of water.

Maybe they give them some candy bars or the like, and say: We will see you on the other side.

So many of the migrants--particularly in the hottest part of the summer in Texas--unfortunately, die making that trip. I have been to Brooks County and have seen some of the unidentified bones and remains of migrants who died trying to make that trip.

Of course, you can imagine coming from Central America in the first place. By the time they even get to Falfurrias and Brooks County and the checkpoint, many of them are already suffering from exposure, including dehydration.

As you can imagine, during the time I have been in the Senate, I have spent a significant amount of time along the border meeting with CBP personnel, law enforcement officials, small businesses, landowners, community leaders, and other citizens about the challenges they and we are facing and what it is we might be able to do here in Washington to help. What I have heard repeatedly is that we need a three-pronged approach.

I know we are primarily focused on or obsessed with physical barriers, and that is certainly a piece of it, but that is only one of the three elements that we need to deal with border security. We need barriers in hard-to-control areas. We need personnel. We need the Border Patrol. And, yes, we need technology. Technology can be a force multiplier, we all know, to help the Border Patrol identify drug smugglers or human traffickers or coyotes bringing human or economic migrants across. What works best in one sector isn't

what is necessarily best for another. So this idea that we would build a physical barrier across the entire State is just nonsense. That is not what the President has proposed.

I remember that former Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, later the Chief of Staff, said: We are not proposing to build a wall ``from sea to shining sea''--because he knew what we know, and that is that what works best in one sector doesn't work well in another.

So we need to keep both the funding and the flexibility to provide the most needed resources that will work best. That is not something we should be trying to dictate or micromanage from thousands of miles away. As I mentioned, the humanitarian crisis has evolved significantly since 2014, and I have no doubt that it will continue to evolve in the coming years. We need to continue the conversation with experts on the ground and stakeholders on the ground and make sure that we can adapt as the threat evolves.

Based on feedback from my constituents in Texas, the funding bill we passed last month included five specific areas, including the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge and the National Butterfly Center, where barriers cannot be constructed. It also included language stating that DHS must consult with local elected officials in certain counties and towns. I happen to believe that kind of consultation can be very positive and can lead to a win-win situation.

I will mention just one location in Hidalgo County, TX. They are right there on the river, and they had to improve the levees because they were worried about the rains leading to floods and the destruction that would follow. In order to deal with improvement of the levee system, they actually worked with the Border Patrol to come up with what they called a levee wall, which helped the Border Patrol control the flow of migrants to places where they could be accessed most easily, but it also provided the improvement in the levee system that helped the Rio Grande Valley, and, particularly, Hidalgo County to develop those counties without prohibitively high or even nonexistent insurance coverage. So that is an example of how, by consulting with local stakeholders, we can come up with win-win scenarios.

The border region's future is bright, thanks to the dedicated law enforcement professionals, elected officials, and business community leaders who keep it safe and prosperous, but we simply can't turn a blind eye and ignore the high level of illegal migration and substances moving across our border. We can't turn a blind eye to the migrants being left for dead in the ranchlands by human smugglers. We can't ignore the humanitarian crisis that continues to grow at an exponential rate.

The President's emergency declaration was his commitment to finally address the problems that overwhelmed our communities along the southern border--both in 2014, when President Obama identified it, and today. It is our duty to deliver real results--not only for the people of Texas but for our friends to the south.

I have heard the concerns raised by my constituents and colleagues about the use of emergency powers in this situation, and I share some of those concerns. I still believe that the regular appropriations process should always be used, but, unfortunately, we saw a refusal on the part of the Speaker of the House and others to engage in bona fide negotiations on border security funding, and that left the administration with what it deemed to be an inadequate source of revenue to do the border security measures they felt they needed in order to address the humanitarian crisis.

Rather than engaging with the President and debating whether the President has the authority to declare a national emergency for border security--which he clearly does--I think our discussions should focus on the structure of emergency powers laws moving forward and whether Congress has delegated too much power, not just to this President but to any President under these circumstances.

I think Brandeis University did a survey of all of the congressional grants of emergency powers that Congress has made over the last years and has identified 123 separate statutes which, if the President declares a national emergency, will allow the President to reprogram money that has been appropriated by Congress for various purposes. I think that is a serious overdelegation of authority by Congress to the executive branch, which is why I intend to cosponsor a bill introduced by our colleague, Senator Lee from Utah, to give Congress a stronger voice in the processes under the National Emergencies Act.

I am going to continue to come to the floor to argue with my colleagues about what we need in that unique part of our country, which is the border region, not only to have a prosperous region in America but also to have a safer America. It is not as simple, frankly, as some people would have it be, and it should not be the subject of partisanship and game-playing, like we have seen the debate over border security under the President's request become.

I yield the floor.

We yield back all time.

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

Mr. President, this week, the Senate will continue to fill vacancies across the Federal bench.

This afternoon, we will vote to confirm Paul Matey to be U.S. Circuit Court Judge for the Third Circuit, and then we will move to the nomination of Neomi Rao for a seat on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals-- the seat that was vacated by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Throughout her career, Ms. Rao has served in all three branches of government. She clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas on the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Harvie Wilkinson on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. She also worked here in the Senate on the Judiciary Committee for then-Chairman Orrin Hatch.

She has worked as Associate Counsel and Special Assistant to President George W. Bush and in her current position as Administrator for the Office of Administration and Regulatory Affairs--one of the most important and least understood Federal Agencies.

In addition to her outstanding career in public service, Ms. Rao was also an associate professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University and is a leading scholar in the field of administrative law.

Knowing her impressive background, it was no surprise to see that the American Bar Association, once hailed by the minority leader as the ``gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged,'' rated her as ``well qualified.''

When considering this particular seat, it is hard to imagine anyone better prepared. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has sometimes been referred to as the ``second highest court in the land'' and is unique because its caseload is disproportionately weighted toward administrative law and litigation involving the Federal Government.

Despite her outstanding qualifications, our Democratic colleagues have attempted to tank Ms. Rao's nomination over decades-old writings. That sounds pretty familiar, although, as I recall, Justice Kavanaugh was excoriated for things in his high school yearbook. At least we have moved on to college when it comes to Ms. Rao.

During her confirmation hearing last month, critics reverted back to that Kavanaugh playbook and began criticizing her for things she wrote in college rather than asking her productive questions about maybe what she has learned since that time or how her views may have changed or how she has functioned as head of the OIRA or how her office has reduced regulatory costs by more than $23 billion. Instead, critics chose to focus on her decades-old writings in college.

Over the years, Ms. Rao has done what we have all done: She has grown and learned from her experiences. She has repeatedly said that she no longer holds the views that she wrote about back in college.

I believe we should judge a nominee not by views they expressed in high school or college but what they have done since that time as mature adults and professionals. So just add me to the long list of people who believe Neomi Rao should be confirmed for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

Two dozen former Supreme Court clerks who worked alongside Rao sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee, touting her qualifications. They said:

Many of us have worked in government, at both the federal

and state levels, some for Democrats and some for

Republicans. . . . While our professional and personal paths

may have diverged, one of things we have always shared is

admiration for Neomi. We are confident she will serve our

country well on the DC Circuit.

We have seen similar letters from her classmates at both Yale and the University of Chicago Law School, as well as a group of more than 50 of her former law students.

Her former students wrote:

Our views span the political spectrum; we have differing

positions on the role and work of the Federal judiciary; and

we have gone on to work in law firms, government, public

interest organizations, and judges' chambers. Yet despite her

differences, we all agree that Professor Rao would make an

outstanding addition to the bench. We have no doubt that, if

confirmed, she would be a brilliant and fair arbiter of the

cases that came before her.

I agree.

I supported Ms. Rao's nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I will once again look forward to supporting her nomination when the full Senate votes on her nomination this week.

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

Mr. President, in thinking about some of the debates swirling about here in Washington, DC, as to whether capitalism or socialism should be a preferred economic model, I recall a story that involves Boris Yeltsin, who went on to become the Russian President, who happened to be in Houston, TX, in 1989, visiting the Johnson Space Center--a very important part of NASA in Houston--when he decided to visit a grocery store in Clear Lake, TX. Though it sounds like it could be, this isn't the beginning of a Wes Anderson film.

It was nearly 20 years ago, in 1989, when the Soviet Union had not yet imploded and when the Berlin Wall was still standing. It would be 2 years before Yeltsin would be forced to take steps to begin to transform the Soviet

economy. As I said, he was in the Houston area, finishing a tour of the Johnson Space Center, when he made an unscheduled stop at a Randalls grocery store before he headed to Miami.

The Houston Chronicle reported at the time that Yeltsin gawked at the abundant produce, the selection of fresh fish, the checkout aisle, and especially the frozen pudding pops. He roamed the aisles, according to the story, stared at the frozen food section, and took advantage of the free samples of cheese. He actually talked to some of the customers there and asked questions about what they were buying and how much it cost them. He was stunned--absolutely stunned--as this was a far cry from the grocery stores in the Soviet Union. Yeltsin said: ``Even the Politburo doesn't have this kind of choice, not even Mr. Gorbachev.''

That day, Boris Yeltsin learned something that the overwhelming majority of people in our country already know--that socialism cannot provide the bounty, the prosperity, or the choices that capitalism can.

Leon Aron, who wrote Yeltsin's biography, quoted one of his associates.

He said:

For a long time, on the plane to Miami, he sat motionless,

his head in his hands. ``What have they done to our poor

people?'' he said, after a long silence.

He told his fellow countrymen who were traveling with him that if their people were to see the conditions in American supermarkets, ``there would be a revolution.''

Make no mistake about it. If the most radical Democrats in our country today get their way on the outlandish socialist policies they are pushing, the American people will be calling for a revolution.

The Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and economic security for those who are able-bodied yet who are unwilling to work are policies that are not going to raise up the most economically disadvantaged people in our country. They are going to pull everyone else down. Socialism promises not prosperity for all but what Winston Churchill called the equal sharing of miseries.

Though these self-proclaimed democratic socialists make big promises on how their policies will deliver fairness and equality for all Americans, that could not be further from the truth. The first thing these policies would do is to bankrupt our country. These unworkable economic policies will kill jobs and outlaw our most reliable, affordable energy sources. ``Medicare for All'' will turn into ``Medicare for none'' when the entire system crashes and when those who are unwilling to work will lose any incentive to even try. It would subsidize a nation of slackers.

This threat of the seductive embrace of socialism isn't an exaggeration. Some of our friends across the aisle are actually critical of the equal opportunity, ``pulling yourself up by your bootstraps,'' hard-working economic system that has made our country the envy of the world. They say: You didn't create your success; the government did--what a bunch of hooey.

Over the weekend, one Democratic Member of the House who was speaking at South by Southwest in Austin, my hometown, referred to capitalism as ``irredeemable'' and tried to blame capitalism for every problem that exists in our society. I admit that we are not perfect, but capitalism isn't the cause of every problem that exists in our society. Of all places to complain about the perils of capitalism, there is more than a little irony in her having chosen Texas--the most successful, free- enterprise economy in our Nation.

Instead of talking about this socialist, Big Government approach that we all know will fail, let's look at how the Texas model has led my State to become an economic powerhouse and the envy of the Nation.

We keep taxes low, government spending restrained, and regulations at a rational minimum to give people and the small businesses that provide jobs the freedom to pursue their dreams and to prosper. I must say that it is obvious that it is working. The unemployment rate in Texas is 4 percent, which is among the lowest in the Nation. In Midland--in the Permian Basin, the heart of the energy boom in my State--unemployment is 2.1 percent. You are hard-pressed to find anybody to take the jobs that do exist because, essentially, everybody who is willing to work is fully employed. The biggest problem that job creators have is getting the workers they need. Yet there is a silver lining for the workers. This pushes wages higher as businesses compete for their labor.

Last week, the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis released international trade data that showed Texas, for the 17th year in a row, as the top State for exports. We make stuff, and we sell stuff. We grow things. We raise cattle and agricultural products, and we sell them. We are the top State for exports. In fact, our exports account for nearly 20 percent of the exports of the entire Nation. In 2018, that totaled more than $315 billion of exports--more than double that of California's, which is the second highest exporter. These earnings not only fuel the economy of our State, but they boost the entire Nation.

Our export dominance is only part of the reason Texas is thriving. Together, with lower taxes and less burdensome regulation, businesses and dream seekers are drawn to our State, which creates opportunities for everyone who is willing to work. Instead of growing government and increasing the tax burden, we allow businesses--small, medium, and large--to invest in their workforces, in our communities, and in our way of life.

In Texas, we believe that less government is more. We don't try to centralize power in the statehouse. We give businesses, entrepreneurs, and hard-working Texans of all backgrounds, ethnicities, and races the freedom by which they can create their own opportunities. We know that the more you tax, the more there are government controls and that the more you regulate, the greater the burden is on new ideas, investment, and opportunity.

The socialist policies being espoused by some members of the Democratic Party are not going to make our businesses and our economy stronger or more competitive. Indeed, history has shown that these are failed policies that will stifle innovation, discourage hard work, and make us look more like that 1980s Soviet grocery store.

Instead of our grocery stores being filled with a selection of beautiful produce, fresh meat, your favorite snack foods, they will be stocked with whatever the government says it wants you to have. Instead of making an appointment with your doctor when you are sick, you will wait for Lord knows how long to get an appointment with a government- run clinic and have few, if any, options. Instead of forcing ourselves out of bed in the morning to go to work, people who are able but who don't want to work will stay in bed, knowing they can receive food and medical care that will be subsidized by your labor and your hard-earned tax dollars.

That is what these old--but now, somehow, dressed up as something new--failed ideas that have been proposed by our Democratic colleagues would do. Forget government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' They want a country by the government, for the government-- the people be damned.

In his autobiography, Yeltsin wrote: ``When I saw those shelves crammed with hundreds, thousands of cans, cartons and goods of every possible sort, for the first time I felt quite frankly sick with despair for the Soviet people . . . that such a potentially super-rich country as ours has been brought to a state of such poverty.''

I pray that our country never sees that day when it is brought to ruin because of these 21st century socialists.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, at the risk of sounding like the mutual admiration society, let me express my appreciation to the Senator from North Carolina, who gave an outstanding presentation, talking about the crisis that exists at our southern border. I really can't improve on it, but I will try.

Fortunately, Senator Tillis is one of those rare Senators who actually has traveled down to the border at my invitation. As he said, he rode horseback as we tried to find our way through the carrizo cane, which obscures visibility for the Border Patrol, and he saw it for himself. I appreciate his bringing the benefit of that experience here to the floor and adding to this important debate.

I was struck by a hashtag I saw being used in the House of Representatives. It is ``FakeEmergency''--hashtag ``FakeEmergency.''

Well, let's mention two sets of parents. For the 7- and 8-year-old boy and girl who recently died in CBP custody at the border who made their way from Guatemala, I don't think this is a fake emergency for them. As Customs and Border Protection Commissioner McAleenan said, many of these immigrants who come all the way from countries like Guatemala suffer from exposure, including dehydration. Many of them are physically or sexually assaulted. Then, there is the danger of infectious diseases, because many have not been vaccinated for common childhood diseases that American citizens would be protected from.

Unfortunately, they are a commodity to the criminal organizations that transport people for roughly $5,000 per person. The cartels--the criminal organizations--are commodity agnostic. They will just as soon usher a migrant from Central America up here who wants to join a family member and perhaps find a job. They will just as soon charge somebody who will ultimately be trafficked and become the victim of modern-day slavery, involuntary servitude, or sex slavery, or they will be happy to move drugs, heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, marijuana--you name it. In fact, 90 percent of the heroin that comes into the United States comes from Mexico, and of the 70,000-plus Americans who died from drug overdoses just last year, according to the Centers for Disease Control, a substantial portion was from the opioids. In other words, that came from Mexico--whether they be pills, fentanyl, or heroin, which is perhaps the cheapest form of opioid.

The Senator from North Carolina and I serve on the Judiciary Committee, and we heard at length from the Commissioner McAleenan of Customs and Border Protection. The picture he painted was pretty bleak, but it bears repetition. Unfortunately, around here it is hard to know when people are listening. Sometimes you have to say the same thing over and over and over before it begins to penetrate people's consciousness. But this is important. So we need to emphasize this.

Many migrants make this arduous journey for days, weeks, or sometimes for months, traveling without food or water. When they arrive, they are often sick and require extensive medical treatment. Of course, there is, as I indicated a moment ago, the horrific stories of physical and sexual abuse. The percentage of women and girls who are sexually abused en route from their homes in Central America is revolting, to use a word.

The Border Patrol spends a vast amount of their time dealing with the human needs of children. In other words, these are law enforcement officers who are basically trying to supply diapers and juice boxes to children who are coming with their families and overwhelming our capacity at the border. While the cartels exploit the fact that the Border Patrol is tied up with this sort of processing of asylum seekers, the drugs come into the country. That is part of the cartel's plan. They have studied our laws. They know where there are gaps in coverage. They know what they can do to distract law enforcement officers so that drugs and human trafficking can get through the border.

Despite all of this and despite the facts that the Senator from North Carolina detailed, we still hear our friends on the other side refusing to engage or offer any solutions whatsoever. As a matter of fact, one of our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee yesterday said: We need to preserve the two things that are the biggest obstacles to getting to a solution. We need to preserve those. In essence, what she was saying is that we need the Border Patrol not to secure our border. We need the Border Patrol to just wave people on through, like a traffic cop. As long as we have these gaps in our asylum laws where we treat people from noncontiguous countries differently than we do from Mexico or Canada and as long as they can wait for years before their asylum claim can be finally adjudicated by an immigration judge, the criminal organizations are winning. They have won because they can successfully place a person in the United States, notwithstanding our laws, by overwhelming our resources at the border and in our interior.

I have talked about the need to increase border security many times on the floor, and I know I risk sounding like a broken record, but as long as we have people in the other body sending out hashtags on social media calling this a fake emergency--when President Obama himself, in 2014, called this a humanitarian crisis--it is going to be necessary, I am afraid, to keep telling the story and talk about what is necessary in order to bring security to our southwest border.

My State has 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico. Our relationship with Mexico is very important because they are one of our main trading partners. There are a lot of good and important things that come back and forth across the border in terms of people legally visiting the United States and in terms of commerce and trade. I have seen one estimate that about 5 million American jobs depend on trade with Mexico. It is not just Texas, either. But the toll that the current status of our immigration laws has on the lives of immigrants crossing our border is real, and the strain it puts on our ability to engage in legitimate trade and commerce to flow freely through our ports is real as well. All of these need to be addressed and without delay.

Let me talk a little bit about the records that have been broken. We saw last month alone that 76,000 people illegally crossed the border and were apprehended by U.S. Customs and the Border Patrol--76,000 people. According to the Commissioner, we are on track to see 600,000 to maybe 650,000 during the next calendar year. This is an 11-year high and averages more than 2,000 people a day. This is not a record we want to be proud of.

We have seen a growing number of family units. The reason why the cartels and criminal organizations bring family units is because they know what our law requires in terms of separating the children from the adults and then placing the children with a sponsor in the United States, only to have them raise their asylum claim in front of an immigration judge years hence. As I said, many simply don't show up for that, and so game over.

We have seen a growing number of family units coming across the border, a 338-percent increase in 2018. The cartels have studied our laws. They are advertising down in Central America, saying: If you want to come to the United States, all you have to do is come as a family unit. We have studied American law, we know where the gaps are, and we are going to exploit them.

Already Border Patrol has apprehended more family units than in all of 2018, and the border regions of Texas are feeling the strain. Our local officials--the mayors, the county judge--and our medical facilities are just not designed for this massive influx of humanity. In the Rio Grande Valley, family unit apprehensions have increased 209 percent since this time last year. Here is a staggering figure: In El Paso, TX, it is a 1,689-percent increase.

As Secretary Nielsen said yesterday, testifying in front of the House, our border is at the breaking point. Our capacity to deal with this influx of humanity is creating a genuine crisis. These are not just percentage points or numbers; they illustrate the human

misery and the challenges of the dedicated law enforcement personnel along the border and also the folks who work trying to deal with the children, whether it is providing them medical care or trying to find them a safe place to live in the United States. This is not a manufactured crisis. This is a real crisis.

In a normal political environment, these numbers would raise the alarm bells, and we would take action--we would actually do something about it--but we aren't operating in a normal political climate, to be sure.

Back in 2006 and 2008, Republicans and Democrats voted on something called the Secure Fence Act. It wasn't particularly partisan or political. This year, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, called physical barriers ``immoral.'' The Democratic leader of the Senate, the Senator from New York, said not one penny was going to be appropriated for any physical barriers along the border.

For those who would argue this is a fake crisis, I would ask them to check with the Texans who live across the border and deal with this every day.

I recently got an email from a friend of mine who has a ranch outside of San Antonio, my hometown. He said he and his wife basically have to arm themselves, and they have to take precautions against people coming across their land because they don't know whether it is going to be some hungry migrant who is just simply looking to find their way to San Antonio or to Houston and then north or whether it is going to be people wearing backpacks carrying fentanyl and heroin. They just don't know, so they have to prepare. They basically have to lock their doors, and they are captives in their own house.

So what has changed since we talked about this back in 2006? What has changed?

My question is more of a rhetorical one because we know Democrats will stop at nothing to prevent President Trump from delivering on his promise to provide border security, even if it means turning their backs on something they have historically supported.

As you might imagine, I have made a point to spend a lot of time in communities along the border. I have talked to the experts--our Border Patrol agents, sheriffs, mayors, landowners, and countless others--on how to best deal with this security and humanitarian crisis. These are the people who know best. They are the experts. They know how best to secure the border.

They will be the first to tell you that when it comes to border security, one size does not fit all. I have mentioned before my friend Judge Eddie Trevino from Cameron County. I was in a meeting with Senator Cruz--my colleague from Texas--local stakeholders, elected officials, along with Customs and Border Protection and Border Patrol. What Judge Trevino told us then was: Look, if it is the experts, the Border Patrol agents, telling us what we need, we are all in, but if it is people from Washington, DC, trying to micromanage the border, who don't know anything about it, then count us as skeptical.

What we have heard from the experts is that border security is a combination of three things: barriers in hard-to-control places, people, and technology.

While a physical barrier may work best in an urban or high-traffic area, it doesn't make any sense in places like Big Bend National Park. Anybody who has been out west to Texas knows the cliffs over the Rio Grande River, in parts, can rise to 30 feet. It doesn't make much sense to put a physical barrier there.

The determination of what is needed and where it is needed should not be a top-down Federal mandate. It should come from the experts who know the threats and the challenges along every mile of the border and whom we entrust on a daily basis to secure it.

We should continue to listen to our vibrant border communities, which are the economic engine of the region, and ensure that we can maintain the flow of legitimate trade and travel also through these areas.

Implementing a solution that would allow our law enforcement experts to work with the Federal Government on the right combination of technology, people, and physical barriers is what we ought to be focusing our attention on.

I would add just a footnote to that on dealing with this problem of people abusing our laws on asylum. Again, the cartels have figured this out. I have worked with my friend Henry Cuellar, who is perhaps one of the last remaining Blue Dog Democrats in the House of Representatives. He represents Laredo, TX. We actually introduced a bill called the HUMANE Act, which would establish parity of treatment of immigrants coming from noncontiguous countries like Central America. Unfortunately, we weren't able to get that passed.

We could fix this pretty quickly, but it requires our Democratic friends to drop their Trump derangement syndrome and come to the negotiating table in support of something they have historically been for during this time of need.

The crisis is staring us in the face, and it demands action. I can only hope our colleagues across the aisle will answer that call.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, regular order.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, regular order.

Regular order.

Regular order, Mr. President.

Mr. President, last week, I spoke on the Senate floor about the perils of socialism. I never thought in my entire life that I would have to do something like that, but given the rise of democratic socialists, which obviously is a contradiction in terms, I think it is important to remind the American people about the failures of socialism, as well as radical policies like the ones the Democrats are trying to push off on the American people.

If you want to know what command and control economics is and what it would mean to our freedom and our liberty, all you need to do is look at the Green New Deal. This is really nothing more than an attempt to mask this power grab by the Federal Government in feel-good environmental policy by mixing ideas like Medicare for All and guaranteed jobs and unrealistic economic and environmental policies.

With net zero emissions--

Mr. President, I will--

--yield for a question after I conclude my remarks, not to be interrupted.

Regular order, Mr. President.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, I am not for socialism. I am not for Washington, DC, thinking they know better than what my constituents know about.

I will not yield.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, if the Democratic leader will just be quiet--

If he will be quiet for a minute, I will tell him what I am for, if he will quit interrupting.

So what this is is an attempt--is purely a power grab here in Washington masked as a feel-good environmental policy, mixing ideas like Medicare for All and guaranteed jobs with wildly unrealistic and radical environmental policies like zero net emissions transportation systems and guaranteed green housing.

Since this resolution was proposed, it has gained the ire of people on both sides of the aisle, something we don't see that often, and something that I don't know that I have ever seen. One of this bill's authors refers to the majority leader's intent to bring this resolution to the floor as sabotage.

Ordinarily, when you introduce an idea to the U.S. Congress, you are begging the majority leader to put it on the floor--the committee chairman to put it through committee so you can advance your idea. When the majority

leader said he would do that for the Green New Deal, it was called sabotage.

Since the Green New Deal was rolled out, things in Washington have gotten increasingly wacky and, believe it or not, even crazy.

We recently put a pricetag on the Green New Deal. You heard the Senator from Iowa talk about the $93 trillion. That is so much money that I doubt most of us can wrap our brains around it. It is kind of like when somebody tells you the Earth is 140 million miles from Mars. How do you conceptualize that? You have no point of reference to understand just how far that really is.

Let me put it this way: If you combine the gross domestic product of every single country in 2017--every single country on the planet in 2017--the price of the Green New Deal would be higher than that.

If you total up how much the United States has spent--the U.S. Government, since the Constitution went into effect in 1789, the price of the Green New Deal would still be higher.

If you total the value of 1 year's worth of oil and gas production in Texas, it would take almost seven centuries of production to pay for the Green New Deal.

Margaret Thatcher, who had a gift for words, said: ``The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.'' Well, in this case, you don't even have the money to begin with, but that is what this is really about.

This is the antithesis of what our Founders believed in when they founded the United States of America. They believed that checks and balances and separated powers were protections of our individual liberty and our right to make decisions for ourselves and our families.

They viewed the concentration of power that would be necessary to do something like the Green New Deal as the opposite--antagonistic to individual liberty.

Mr. President, things like eradicating air travel clearly aren't the answer, and the Senator from Hawaii would say that wouldn't work very well if you tried to get to Hawaii from Washington, DC.

No matter what your perspectives on energy are or the environment, I think every one of us can single out something we can agree on; that is, smarter policies that will not bankrupt our country.

The solution is not the Green New Deal or another government power grab. It is all about innovation--

--the creativity of Americans--

--doing research and science to come up with--

--innovations.

Mr. President, I notice one thing: When people around here--colleagues across the aisle--don't like what they are hearing, they try to suppress or drown out dissenting voices.

I think the American people need to hear this debate because our ability to innovate is critical to the success of our economy and our competitiveness in the global economy.

Investing in science and technology and increasing our ability to innovate is an important part of keeping our economy strong. Rather than the government's seizing control of nearly every industry, overregulating their activities as you would under the Green New Deal, we should harness the power of the private sector to drive real, affordable solutions, and that is how we find cutting-edge solutions to our biggest challenges.

A lot of folks try to paint with broad strokes about energy. You are either on the side of innovation and new technologies or you are in favor of traditional oil and gas development.

Well, I am proud to come from a State that believes truly in an ``all of the above'' approach. We generate more electricity from wind than any other State in the country, and we believe in all of the above. You don't have to pick one or the other.

Not only do we lead the Nation in oil and gas production, we also lead, as I said, in wind energy production too. We are proof that you can implement policies that get government out of the way and leave industry experts to do their jobs. You can be pro-energy, pro- innovation, and pro-growth.

The Green New Deal is not the answer to our problems. It is a solution in search of a problem, and it is a naked power grab by Washington, DC, seeking to impose on each and every American how we should run our lives.

It is the opposite of the individual liberties and freedoms that our Founders believed our country would be based on. I hope in the coming months we will take steps to promote freedom and not more government control and ideas that lead to innovation, not socialist policies.

With that, I yield to my friend from Indiana.

Mr. President, I will say to my friend from New York that I know what their talking points are now, but I don't believe what we ought to do about the environment is impose a travesty like the Green New Deal.

This is a government power grab. It is unaffordable. It is unrealistic. And, really, this reflects the most radical ideology and fringe of the Democratic Party today.

I think we should not have a socialist power grab of our entire economy.

Mr. President, there is a great book called ``SuperFreakonomics'' written by some Chicago economists who talk about the threat to the environment of horse manure back when we had horse- drawn buggies in our cities because the internal combustion engine had not been created. They point out that that environmental hazard went away almost overnight because the internal combustion engine was created.

Likewise, when I was growing up, a scientist named Paul Ehrlich from Stanford wrote a book called ``The Population Bomb.'' He said that millions of people would starve across our country and across the world unless we basically quit having children. What he miscalculated is the impact of a gentleman by the name of Norman Borlaug and the Green Revolution that he began due to research and development of an innovative plant gene research.

So we were able to basically defeat the population bomb, and we were able to deal with the environmental hazard of horse manure by innovation. That is what I am for, that is what I said, and that is what I would say again to my friend from New York.