Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

State of the Union Address

Mr. President, as the world knows by now, tonight President Trump will deliver his delayed State of the Union Message.

This is a tradition that, of course, dates back to the Constitution, but the Constitution is ambiguous or unclear or actually doesn't say exactly how that annual message should be delivered. We know that George Washington, for example, delivered his annual message in 1790 at the Federal Hall of New York City, which was the temporary seat of the Federal Government at the time. Although John Adams delivered an in- person address, the tradition didn't last very long. Our third President, Thomas Jefferson, chose to deliver the message in writing, a practice that lasted for nearly a century--that is, until President Woodrow Wilson chose to speak to the Congress in 1913.

According to the Washington Post, people were outraged at this breach of tradition, which maybe speaks to how hard change is in Washington,

Madam President, I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to the Senator from Nebraska for her comments on the INF Treaty that President Trump has withdrawn the United States from. There wasn't much of a treaty left, really, after Russia repeatedly violated it, and China is not even bound by it. It is very important, when we are talking about these issues, that we understand the facts and the state of the world as it is.

I read a recent summary by the RAND Corporation of their analysis of Russia and China. They called Russia a rogue, not a peer, and China a peer, not a rogue. There is a lot behind that, but I think it really is true that the only way we are going to deter the Russians is by maintaining our strength. The way we do that is by doing what is necessary to protect the United States and our allies. In this case, that means taking a treaty that has already been violated by the Russians and no longer bounds China and building the appropriate missiles to deter anybody from taking advantage of any perceived weakness in the United States, insofar as it comes to protecting ourselves or our allies.

I would like to express my appreciation for those comments and support them.

Honoring Donna Doss

Madam President, it is with a heavy heart that I come to the Senate floor this morning to express my deepest condolences for the friends, family, and colleagues of U.S. Border Patrol agent Donna Doss, who was killed in the line of duty this last weekend.

On Saturday, February 2, Agent Doss responded to a call for assistance from a Texas Department Public Safety trooper on Interstate Highway 20, near Abilene, TX. While on the scene, she was struck by a passing vehicle and died shortly thereafter of her injuries.

During her more than 15 years of dedicated service, Agent Doss has made immeasurable contributions to public safety, both in Texas and beyond. Her career with the Border Patrol began at the Brackettville Station in the Del Rio Sector, where she worked to disrupt and dismantle several of our narcotic organizations as a Drug Enforcement Administration task force officer.

Her career then led her to Washington State, where she led the Criminal Alien Prosecutions Unit for the Spokane Sector.

Then, in 2011, Agent Doss made her way back to Texas to serve in the Laredo Sector, first, as supervisory Border Patrol agent and, later, as operations officer.

Since March of 2017, she served as resident agent in Abilene, where she was responsible for all of the enforcement operations across eight counties.

In addition to leading a distinguished career, Agent Doss was a loving wife, daughter, sister, and stepmother. Her loss is another solemn reminder of the courageous sacrifices law enforcement officers and their families make every day. We are grateful to all of those who put their lives on the line when they put on their uniform every morning, ready to face the unknown challenges that lie ahead. I am particularly grateful to the men and women in green who make up our Nation's Border Patrol, like Agent Doss.

I want to thank Agent Doss' family for her selfless service and sacrifice, and I send my heartfelt condolences to Agent Doss' family, friends, Acting Sector Chief Matthew Hudak, the agents of the Border Patrol Del Rio Sector, where she honorably served, and the entire Border Patrol family during this difficult time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following

interns from the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted privileges of the floor through March 15, 2019: Grant Cummings and Alexandra Ongman.

Mr. President, on Tuesday of this week, the Senate Finance Committee had a very important hearing on the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs, something the Presiding Officer knows a lot about.

In 2017, a study found that more than half of Americans regularly take some form of prescription medication. Modern medicine has made living with chronic health conditions that would have once been debilitating or fatal--like diabetes, high blood pressure, or asthma-- modern medicine has made living with those conditions manageable. That is a blessing for which we are all grateful.

I know, at the same time, many of my constituents and many Americans struggle to buy prescription drugs to treat common health problems, not because they aren't widely available but because they simply are unaffordable. For many higher cost, brand-named drugs, generic alternatives are available at a lower price. For example, I happened to take a drug called Lipitor, which previously was covered by a patent. As a result of that patent, the cost of the drug was higher because the producer of the drug had a monopoly. We grant that monopoly for a period of time--I believe it is 12 years--in order for them to recoup their research and investment dollars. Unfortunately, many of these efforts to come up with lifesaving drugs are unsuccessful. So in order to encourage innovation and lifesaving discoveries, we have to find a way to allow drug companies to recover their sunk costs and make a profit.

Generic drugs have really been a lifesaver for many people. That same Lipitor that I take now is off of patent and is available for a few dollars for a 30-day supply. That is just one example. One study found that 93 percent of generic prescriptions are filled at $20 or less, with the average cost being just more than a little over $6, but for many drugs, there are no low-cost alternatives, and people are increasingly struggling to cover the rising costs of their medication.

One witness from Indiana, Kathy Sego, I think, speaks for a lot of parents who have children suffering from diabetes needing insulin, and I think her story was emblematic of that problem across the country.

In her case, she is a wife, a mother of two, and a choir teacher. Her son Hunter is one of the more than 30 million Americans who suffer from diabetes, and he relies on insulin to manage his blood sugar.

Kathy told us that when her son Hunter started college, he started to go to the pharmacy to pick up his insulin prescription himself. That is when he discovered that it cost $1,700 a month, even with health insurance. The copay--the part they were responsible for and had been paying for Hunter, unbeknownst to him--is $1,700 a month. Kathy assured him that, unfortunately, that cost was correct; $1,700 only covers a 1- month supply.

Over the next few weeks, their family began to notice a change in their son Hunter. He was losing weight, falling behind in school, and was depressed--a far cry from what she said was his normally positive and energetic self. Unbeknownst to his parents, Hunter had only purchased one vial of insulin when he needed four, and he began rationing his supply of the drug. To try to counterbalance that, he began skipping meals--which is dangerous for a diabetic to do, let alone an incredibly active college football player like him. Fortunately, in time, his family realized what had happened, and they intervened, avoiding what could have been fatal consequences, but her family still battles with the expense of this insulin.

Kathy says she worries about what happens when Hunter graduates from college, noting that his life choices are contingent upon his ability to pay for the medicine he needs to keep him alive. She wondered at our hearing: Can he afford an apartment, utility bills, and repay his student loans? Hunter, she said, needs insulin to live, but should that need for insulin keep him from living?

About 1.5 million Americans have type 1 diabetes like Hunter, where their body produces no insulin to deal with the blood sugar, but as I mentioned earlier, 30 million Americans, according to the Centers for Disease Control, have diabetes, and about 3 million of those 30 million are in my State of Texas. Three million Texans have diabetes for which insulin is a required treatment.

While we know it is common to see higher drug prices for new drugs that have recently completed the costly research-and-development phase, that is not the case for insulin, which has been around for nearly a century and is a type of biologic drug which is generally more expensive to produce.

I hope Kathy and Hunter's story--which could be told millions of times by other families across the country--impels us to investigate the causes for these unreasonable costs for some of these prescription drugs. I hope we find a solution--and I am confident we will if we try hard enough--that will allow families like Kathy's to live without the burden of wondering how to pay for their healthcare costs, particularly when it comes to prescription drugs.

At Tuesday's hearing, I also questioned our witnesses about a phenomenon known as rebates and the way pharmacy benefit managers deal with pharmaceutical companies.

I noted that, ordinarily, it was a crime to kick back money to a provider. For some reason that nobody could justify, there was an exclusion for these rebates by pharmacy benefit managers to pharmaceutical companies.

In the case of prescription drug pricing, rebates and discounts provided by manufacturers could mean the difference between a drug being covered by your insurance plan or not, and, certainly, whatever the net price is after the rebate is not transparent to anybody, much less to the consumer, or returned directly to the consumer. Not only does this drive up the list price and out-of-pocket cost of lifesaving drugs, but it makes it impossible for Congress or anybody to determine where each dollar goes.

I find this lack of transparency alarming. It shouldn't take an advanced degree to figure out where your money is going when you buy prescription drugs or how to shop for the most effective drug at the right price. When it comes to prescription drugs, we need to promote transparency first and foremost, and we need to streamline and eliminate regulations and laws that allow the middlemen to unnecessarily drive up prices. We know we have the opportunity to do that in the coming months.

We shouldn't require people suffering from chronic diseases to subsidize the healthcare costs of healthy people. There is something strangely wrong about this picture. I am glad we had the opportunity to listen to witnesses on this topic, and I thank them for taking the time to share their insights.

I look forward to continuing to work with all of our colleagues on the Finance Committee and generally to identify ways to make prescription drugs more affordable and accessible to the American people.

As the Presiding Officer knows, given his background in healthcare, I am confident he can be an important part of that solution, as well.

Tribute to Susan Pamerleau

Mr. President, switching gears just a bit, I want to share a quick good-news story of two outstanding Texans who blazed the trail for women in public service.

While I was in San Antonio, my hometown, a couple of weeks ago, I had the chance to congratulate our new U.S. marshal for the Western District of Texas, Susan Pamerleau. Over the years, she has held many impressive titles--general in the Air Force and sheriff--and now she is a U.S. Marshal. In addition to each of those, I have always been proud to know her under a different title--as a friend.

At Susan's ceremonial swearing-in, Chief Judge Orlando Garcia opened by noting the historical significance of her being the first female marshal ever in the Western District of Texas, which was established in 1857.

Susan's long and impressive career began at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, where my dad happened to have been stationed at one time, where she received her commission through officer training school. Over the course of her 32-year career in the Air Force, she rose through the ranks and retired, ultimately, as an Air Force major general in the year 2000.

When she returned to Texas, Susan joined USAA as a vice president and later became senior vice president. It wasn't until 10 years later that her career in law enforcement began when she was elected sheriff of Bexar County, TX, which is the 11th largest sheriff's office in the Nation.

Susan was the first woman to hold that role as well, but she said:

It was not about being the first woman. It was really about

redefining the role of what the Bexar County sheriff does.

Over the years, I have had the opportunity to work with her on a number of issues impacting my constituents and our constituents, including mental health and law enforcement reforms. I think she has made an enormous contribution to both of those areas.

Needless to say, I was thrilled when the President nominated Susan to be the new U.S. marshal for the Western District of Texas and when she was confirmed last fall. Her integrity, leadership, and management skills are critical to the Western District of Texas, which comprises 68 counties and more than 6 million people.

I wish, once again, to congratulate my dear friend Susan Pamerleau on becoming the U.S. marshal, and I look forward to continuing to work with her as we serve together the people of Texas

Remembering Mary Lou Robinson

Mr. President, finally, when you talk about women opening doors in Texas, you can't leave out Mary Lou Robinson, who sadly passed away last weekend at the age of 92.

Her long and distinguished legal career began at the University of Texas School of Law, where she met her husband, A.J. After law school, they returned to Amarillo, TX, where they opened up the firm appropriately named Robinson & Robinson.

In 1955, she left the private practice of law when Potter County commissioners appointed her judge of the Potter County Court at Law, making her the first in a series of firsts for this remarkable woman.

Judge Robinson found her passion, and she was hooked. In the coming decades, she became an advocate for women's rights, and she helped to promote the passage of the Texas Equal Rights Amendment, a constitutional amendment voted on by the people in 1972.

Over the course of her remarkable 63-year judicial career, Judge Robinson served as the 108th District Court judge, followed by associate and then chief justice of the 7th Court of Appeals, located in Amarillo.

In 1979, she was appointed by President Jimmy Carter to be a judge of the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Texas, where she served for nearly 40 years.

Her career is impressive, not only for its length but for its quality. One attorney practicing before Judge Robinson noted: ``Lawyers may disagree on a lot of things, but almost all agree that she treats everyone equally and fairly.'' That is high praise for a district judge.

Judge Robinson will be remembered as an inspiring and devoted judge, an early advocate for women's rights, and a beloved member of her community.

Last summer, Senator Cruz and I introduced a bill to rename the Federal building and courthouse in Amarillo the J. Marvin Jones Federal Building and the Mary Lou Robinson United States Courthouse.

This lasting testament to her judicial career will live on for generations, and I am proud that Senator Cruz and I were able to cement this legacy for this legal pioneer.

While our family sends our prayers to the family of Mary Lou Robinson, we can all be proud of her distinguished career of service, not only to her beloved community in Amarillo but to the State of Texas and to the Nation as a whole.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that the majority leader has put before the Senate an important piece of legislation that reemphasizes our support for our allies in the Middle East, a very dangerous neighborhood that has a tendency to have others drawn into the neighborhood and into the fight. This legislation is comprised of four bills that have enjoyed bipartisan support, but we weren't able to

get them done before the deadline at the end of the 115th Congress.

Each of these four bills speaks directly to our national security interests in the Middle East and the support for our allies, particularly allies like Jordan and Israel. Every day, the State of Israel faces attacks from adversaries in the region, ranging from rocket and missile attacks to various explosives and foot soldiers-- namely, Hezbollah, the Iranian-financed and trained effort to try to exterminate the Jewish State.

Israel is also enduring a different type of warfare, this time an economic war known as Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions or the BDS movement. This campaign began in 2005 with more than 170 Palestinian nongovernmental organizations lobbying foreign governments, corporations, and academic institutions to sever all their ties with Israel. In the years since, this movement has expanded with participants seeking to isolate Israel both economically and politically.

For some, their participation in the movement is simply a means of voicing their opposition to Israeli policies in the Middle East-- something that at least in the United States, they have every right to do under the First Amendment. For others, though, it is part of a strategy to isolate Israel politically and economically, either to delegitimize the State or to force it to redraw its map.

State-sponsored BDS is incredibly harmful. We have seen support for BDS in capitals across Europe and, sadly, even in the United Nations, where the movement has been supported by countries with questionable humanitarian records, such as China, Russia, and Venezuela. A few years ago, the U.N. Human Rights Council called for the creation of a so- called blacklist, naming companies that do business with Israel. Then, in a report in January, the U.N. Human Rights Council laid the groundwork for utilizing those databases to boycott those businesses, including at least 22 American companies.

It is shameful, really, that the U.N. has chosen to fuel this movement by encouraging countries to boycott these businesses for what they claim are illegal activities, even though that argument has absolutely no bearing on either the United States or Israel. This effort to choke off Israel's economy by ending business ties with other countries could have serious impacts. We want to make sure State and local governments have the flexibility to avoid business with entities that support the BDS movement if they wish.

One of the bills included in the legislation we are considering is called the Combating BDS Act, led by our colleagues Senator Rubio and Senator Manchin.

Before I talk about what the bill does, I want to talk about what it does not do. Nothing in this bill restricts constitutionally protected speech. The law only impacts commerce-related or investment-related activities in the course of interstate or international commerce. The law does not punish companies for expressing their opposition to Israel or its policies or engaging in anti-Israel boycotts, for example.

What this legislation does do, however, is clarify that State and local governments have every right to counter boycotts of Israel without fear that they are somehow violating Federal law. It assures those local governments and State governments that if they decide not to issue contracts or otherwise do business with entities that are boycotting or divesting from Israel, they have every legal right to do so. This is not a new concept, as 34 States have already enacted legislation to combat BDS.

In 2017, Texas became the 18th State to pass legislation preventing tax dollars being used to support the boycott of Israel. When Governor Abbott signed that bill into law, he said, at the time, ``Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies, and we will not tolerate such actions against an important ally.''

I agree with his sentiment, certainly, and I believe it is time to provide all 50 States with the flexibility to make this decision to forgo any business that would harm the Jewish State.

It goes without saying, but perhaps we should reiterate that Israel is an important and valuable friend and ally to the United States. It is one of the main stabilizing influences in the Middle East, an admittedly dangerous neighborhood, with aggressors on all sides wanting to literally wipe the State of Israel off the map. Of course, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Ensuring its viability is critical to protecting U.S. interests abroad and here at home, and it is important that we support our closest ally in the region.

Passing this legislation is a step to support Israel in their efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East. It takes a strong stance against the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic BDS movement and confirms our longstanding support of Israel. So I look forward to voting yes on this important legislation when the time comes, hopefully, very soon.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I would like to start by saying a few words about the horrific shooting that occurred in Houston, TX, at about 5 o'clock yesterday.

A team of narcotics patrol officers from the Houston Police Department were serving a warrant. As soon as they breached the door at the home in southeast Houston, the suspects opened fire. Four officers were hit; one critically, and one other was injured as a result of an unrelated mishap. Three of these officers were in good condition, and two remained in critical but stable condition in the hospital.

For the case agent, the most senior officer on the narcotics squad, this was the third time he had been shot in the line of duty--once in 1992 and again in 1997. He told Chief Art Acevedo: ``I had to get in there because I knew my guys were down.''

I echo the Houston Police Union President Joe Gamaldi, who said last night that enough is enough. This type of attack against law enforcement is unconscionable and unacceptable. These are dedicated public servants who have taken an oath to serve and protect our communities and who potentially sacrifice their very lives every day to keep our families safe.

Today, with a heavy heart, I want to thank the Houston Police Department and law enforcement officers across the country who put on the uniform each morning, never knowing what the day might bring. We are incredibly grateful for their service and the tremendous sacrifices they make.

I also want to acknowledge the work of the Houston Fire and EMS Department who moved Heaven and Earth to ensure these heroic, wounded officers got the medical care they needed as soon as possible.

I thank my friends Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and Chief Acevedo for their leadership during this very difficult time for the city of Houston and our entire State.

My wife Sandy and I are praying for the officers, their families, and their brothers and sisters in blue.

Mr. President, I have 9 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

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

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 29, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on China and Russia.

Committee on Environment and Public Works

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 29, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Nicole R. Nason, of New York, to be Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation.

Committee on Finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 29, 2019, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Drug Pricing in America: A Prescription for Change, Part I''.

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, January 29, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Access to Care: Health Centers and Providers in Underserved Communities''.

Committee on Indian Affairs

The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 29, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct an organizational and business meeting.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 29, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a business meeting.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 29, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Open Hearing on Worldwide Threats''.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 29, 2019, at 1 p.m., to conduct a closed 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, January 29, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining Department of Defense enterprise-wide cybersecurity policies and architecture.''

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

Mr. President, after a 35-day government shutdown, more than 800,000 Federal workers and their families are finally back at work. Their families have endured unnecessary and needless hardship over the past several weeks because, frankly, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, was more determined to try to win the political battle than solve the problem. I could give the same comment to our friend the Democratic leader here in the Senate. I hope now, after we have been through this exercise in futility, that our colleagues will take seriously our responsibility to solve the problem before us, and that is to reach an agreement so we don't end up in the same position 3 weeks hence when this continuing resolution expires.

I tell people that we solve problems like this every single day here in the Congress. You don't read about it, necessarily, or hear about it because when we build consensus and negotiate compromises, it is not news. The only time it is news is when we disagree and when it is broadcast across cable TV or the subject of talk radio or social media.

It is unfortunate that dedicated public servants were caught in the crosshairs over a partisan fight on border security. What we have seen over the last months is that many Members desire to score those political points and win a fight against the President, and that desire is much greater than their desire to build legislation that benefits the American people.

There is a solution to be had. As I said, we do it every day. The only question is, Are we willing to work together to find it? I know I am.

I have been speaking with many Members of the Texas delegation, both Republicans and Democrats, to try to find that common ground for our constituents for border security. We don't consider these to be political footballs or talking points; we consider these matters to be part of their daily lives and part of our responsibility as their elected representatives.

In the last few days, I have had the chance to be in Dallas, TX, and also in

Austin, TX. I was in Austin, TX, to talk about the CyberTipline we reauthorized working with Facebook and Microsoft and other social media platforms to talk about how we can work together to combat child pornography and child exploitation, using the authority of the CyberTipline. We were joined by the new U.S. attorney there, John Bash. I asked him whether his prosecutors who were prosecuting these cases or the FBI agents who would investigate them or his support staff who support the U.S. attorney's office--whether any of them were getting paid, and he said no. But everybody showed up at work, doing their job, fighting the scourge of child exploitation, even though they weren't getting paid.

Ditto in the Northern District of Texas, where I visited with the U.S. attorney, who gave me the same story. We were there talking about the scourge of human trafficking. Erin Nealy Cox, the U.S. attorney in Dallas, pointed out that, yes, the prosecutors were there at work, the investigators were there, and the support staff were there, even though they were the ones probably earning the most modest paychecks of anybody in the office. Everybody was there, doing their job, even though during these 35 days they had missed two different Federal paychecks.

Thinking now about the solution to our standoff on border security, I wanted to mention that a couple of weeks ago the President flew to McAllen, TX. Senator Cruz and I joined him in the Rio Grande Valley to hear from the experts. By ``the experts,'' I don't mean folks who run for office here in Washington, DC. I mean the Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, and Department of Homeland Security experts who actually work on the ground there along the border.

We also met with mayors and county judges and other folks who live in those communities and are most concerned about safety and security but also the economy of the border region. We discussed with them what sensible border security actually looks like.

We know that physical barriers didn't use to be a partisan issue when the Senator from New York--the Democratic leader--Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton all voted for the Secure Fence Act back in 2006. We called it a fence then and not a wall, but it was a physical barrier, and it was a nonpartisan issue.

That was then and this is now. When we were talking about physical barriers along the border, my friend Cameron County Judge Eddie Trevino said something that stuck with me, and I have repeated it a number of times, and I think it could be a lesson to all of us about how to approach this entire debate. He said that if law enforcement officials say where barriers are needed, he is all in, but if politicians say where they are needed and they are trying to micromanage border security, consider him a skeptic.

I think what people want--and my sense is what my constituents along the border region and across the State of Texas want and, I dare say, across the country--is to come up with effective solutions that will make our border more secure. Since Texas has 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico, of course, I have thought about this a lot, and I have listened and learned a lot about this. What I have been told and I believe is that at any given place along the border, you are going to have some combination of three elements: physical barriers, technology, and personnel. We need a complement of each of those things in this border security bill that hopefully we will be voting on in the coming weeks.

Many areas along the border are subject to high pedestrian traffic. They need physical barriers. That is why they make sense in El Paso and San Diego and Tucson, for examples. All of these saw a massive drop in apprehensions after fencing or physical barriers were put in place, along with a complement of technology and border agents when they were deployed in the 1990s and 2000s. We know that barriers can work. We have seen it proven time and again.

We all agree that we don't need barriers across the entire 2,000-mile southwestern border. We don't need a great wall from sea to shining sea across the border. One example comes readily to mind. Big Bend National Park, for example, is home to massive canyons, and some of the cliffs reach more than 3,000 feet high along the Rio Grande River. It is a spectacular and beautiful place. It would not only be impractical but completely wasteful to build a physical barrier on top of a towering cliff. That is just one example of where you might want to use some other parts of that triad of technology and personnel because a physical barrier wouldn't make much sense.

There are others who have suggested that we use the natural barrier of the Rio Grande River. Right now, much of that river is filled with something called carrizo cane, which makes it harder for the Border Patrol to actually locate people trying to enter the United States illegally. It reduces the effectiveness of that natural physical barrier of the Rio Grande River. We need to find a way to eradicate that in a way that will not only allow that river to be more of a natural barrier but also provide greater visibility for the Border Patrol.

In some areas, as I said, physical barriers, either new, repaired, or replaced are desperately needed. In others, surveillance technology, such as sensors or drones, will do the trick. Many additional personnel are needed to improve efficiency or alleviate staffing shortages. It doesn't make sense to have a physical barrier if there is no Border Patrol agent to detain somebody entering the country illegally or to interdict the drugs that come across the border.

As my friend Judge Trevino said, politicians shouldn't be the ones deciding exactly where along the border each of these three elements is applied. That is why we have asked and will continue to ask Customs and Border Protection--the experts--what we need and provide funding to implement the changes they have asked for.

I think it is a statement of the obvious to say that, in addition to improving the physical security across our border, we need to make changes in our border security approach and immigration system as a whole. Unfortunately, we are not even dealing with the larger problem of our broken immigration system.

Several years ago, I introduced legislation to the so-called Gang of 8 immigration bill that we were debating at the time. The legislation I introduced was called the RESULTS amendment. I believe the foundation of that legislation should be incorporated in any future legislation we come up with here in the next few weeks. One of the main requirements was for the Department of Homeland Security to come up with a plan to achieve operational control of every single border sector, meaning a 90-percent border apprehension rate. Requiring this sort of metric or apprehension rate will provide a clear, objective way to measure border security. Ironically, the way we measure border security now is that we know how many people are detained, but we don't know how many get away. It is a strange way to count effectiveness by counting the ones we detain but not the ones who get away--which obviously we can't do. If we come up with a better way to measure border security with a clear- cut metric like a 90-percent operational control requirement, I think it would provide a better way for us to determine how to efficiently spend the tax dollars we are talking about, which we are stewards of here in the Congress, and ensure that we are focusing our resources on the highest priority areas. This requirement would allow us to do that.

That particular legislation, the RESULTS amendment, would also require increased surveillance and provide solutions to commonsense problems. For example, it would have prevented violent criminals from acquiring legal status, provided law enforcement with critical national security and public safety information, and mitigated the problem of visa overstays. This RESULTS amendment would have strengthened biometric requirements.

It is ironic, as we talk about border security and immigration, that we turn a blind eye to the 40 percent of illegal immigration that occurs when people enter the country legally and overstay their visas. Unless they commit some other crime in the course of their time here, they are largely not located. So we need to find a better way to enforce all of our immigration laws, including visa overstays.

We can't ignore the fact that our border is not only a place that needs security but that is important to the economic vitality of not only my State

but of our country. The financial impact of legitimate trade and travel is enormous. As a matter of fact, $300 billion worth of goods flow back and forth through Texas's ports of entry alone in a given year. That is why this type of legislation is so important--because it provides resources to significantly reduce wait times at border crossings, which makes the movement of people and goods faster but no less secure.

Finally, this legislation took a stand against the brutal human rights violations we see along the southern border by stiffening penalties on abusive human smugglers and transnational criminal organizations. There may have been a time when the so-called coyotes were a mom-and-pop operation. ``Coyotes'' is just the name for human smugglers. Now it is big business, and the same criminal organizations that move drugs and economic migrants also traffic in human beings for sex and other involuntary servitude. It is no longer a mom-and-pop operation, to be sure, and we need to make sure the penalties for this illegal activity are increased and stiffened to meet the challenge of transnational criminal organizations.

I believe that all of these points still deserve a place in our debate today. I look forward to working with our colleagues in the coming weeks to create meaningful and lasting change to strengthen our border security as well as to fix longstanding problems with our immigration system. I believe we can find common ground, and I hope our Democratic colleagues will follow through in their commitment to negotiating in good faith so that we do.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Johnson, be recognized for 5 minutes.

I promise my friend from Maryland that I will be less than an hour. I am kidding. I am kidding. I will try to wrap it up in 10 or 15 minutes, max.

Mr. President, responding to our friend from Maryland, I understand the situation. We will try to figure out how to accommodate all Senators so that they get a chance to speak.

Mr. President, since the shutdown began, we have heard voices on both sides of the aisle, mine included, calling for a bipartisan solution to fund the government and end this stalemate. With Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer refusing to come to the negotiating table, they made finding common ground much harder than it needs to be.

This weekend, President Trump made a serious proposal that would deliver on priorities that are important to both parties--Republicans and Democrats--in bringing this partial government shutdown to an end.

The bill we voted on today contains key provisions to border security and to make improvements to our immigration system as a whole. As we have heard from the Border Patrol experts time and again, we need sensible solutions, which, along the border, consist of three components: its physical barriers in some locations, its technology in others, and personnel in others--or some combination of those three.

President Trump himself has said he understands there doesn't need to be a wall from sea to shining sea, and he has acknowledged the role of technology and personnel and border security. We need to prevent the illegal movement of goods and people without inhibiting legitimate trade and travel.

I wish to show colleagues one example of a physical barrier in Texas that was voted on in a bond election in Hidalgo County, TX. These are folks who live on the border. They voted to pay for this levee wall. The reason? Because they knew the levee system had to be improved in order to get insurance companies to write insurance so that they could build and develop the property in Hidalgo County, TX.

They also talked to the Border Patrol about what the Border Patrol needed to control the movement of illegal immigration across the border, and they came up with a win-win proposition--a levee wall, which is appropriate at this particular location. This was voted on as a bond election by the voters in Hidalgo County, TX, and did not involve spending any Federal money.

My simple point is, there are solutions that can be worked out if we consult the experts--the Border Patrol--to find out what exactly they need for border security that will meet with public approval along the border and represent a win-win.

Recently, when the President was in McAllen, TX, Senator Cruz--my colleague from Texas--and I had a meeting with mayors and county judges after the President's entourage left to come back to Washington, DC. I remember specifically my friend, Judge Eddie Trevino, the county judge of Cameron County, TX--that is where Brownsville, TX, is--who said: If it is the Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection telling us what we need in order to secure the border, we are all in. But if it is people in Washington, DC, making political judgments, politicians trying to micromanage how the border can be secured, we remain deeply skeptical.

I think those wise words ought to guide us in our discussions going forward. Not only did the legislation that embodied the President's proposal invest in critical components along the border, it included more than $1 billion for improvements and personnel at our ports of entry.

If you talk to anybody who knows anything about the movement of illegal drugs--heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl--across the border, most of it comes through the port of entry, embedded in trucks and trailers and personal vehicles. We need more technology in order to scan those vehicles

in secondary review. In order to detect them, deter them, interdict them, we need the personnel to be able to do that without impeding legitimate trade and travel.

These are priorities I have long advocated for, based on feedback from the experts--the law enforcement officers, community leaders, and folks who live and work along the Texas-Mexico border every day.

As we all know, the challenges that exist within our immigration system don't end at our borders. With a court backlog of roughly 800,000 cases deep, nearly 1 million people living in the United States with temporary legal status, and the loopholes that make enforcing some of our immigration laws nearly impossible, there is much more that needs to be done. That is why this legislation includes provisions to build the foundation of real immigration reform--something heralded by both parties.

This bill generously granted provisional status to current DACA and temporary protected status recipients, who live each day not knowing if or when they would be forced to leave the United States. It does not offer a path to citizenship or a long-term solution. I wish we could do that, but we don't have a long-term solution. It does provide stability for 3 years while Congress works on a legislative fix.

This is far from a solution to the pervasive problems in our immigration system, but it is a start. A journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. This represents a first step. Most importantly, though, this legislation funds the Departments and Agencies that have been shuttered since December 22. This shutdown may have begun as a battle for border security, but it affects men and women in all 50 States whose jobs have nothing to do with border security at all, people at the Department of Agriculture, the Justice Department, the Interior Department, Housing and Urban Development, Treasury, the National Space and Aeronautics Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Peace Corps. All of the people working for each of these government Agencies are working without pay or have been furloughed. Not only is the partial shutdown impacting the critical work being done by these Departments and Agencies, it is harming the dedicated men and women who work at them, those tasked with executing and enforcing laws written by this very body.

Since this shutdown began 34 days ago, nearly 800,000 Federal workers have lost the security of knowing when their next paycheck will come. Tomorrow is the second paycheck they will miss, meaning they have now gone more than a month without income.

Yesterday, when I was in Austin and then in Dallas, I was told that people who routinely volunteer their time at the food banks in those locations now find themselves going to the food banks and seeking food so they can feed their families because they are missing a government paycheck and can't provide for them without the generosity of those food banks.

I also went to events in Austin and Dallas and met with U.S. attorneys in both locations to talk about our efforts to counter human trafficking and child exploitation. What I learned is that the frontline prosecutors who prosecute these kinds of cases aren't being paid, but maybe more troublesome is the fact that neither are the FBI agents who conduct the investigations or the administrative personnel who support the U.S. attorneys offices. So this is harming our ability to investigate and prosecute human trafficking and child exploitation cases too. People are being forced to work without pay, and it is harming not only them but also the victims of these horrific crimes.

More than 110,000 of these unpaid Federal workers earn less than $50,000 a year, and they rely on their paycheck to make ends meet. They are not millionaires. While we did pass legislation to guarantee that these public servants will eventually get their pay, that does nothing to help them in the interim.

Federal workers are being forced to make decisions that no family should have to consider. For a single mom who is a Federal correctional officer in Arizona, that means turning off her heat, never letting the temperature get higher than 60 or 65 degrees in order to cut costs. For a mom in Wisconsin who works at the Department of the Interior, that means rationing her insulin because she can't afford the $300 copay.

This shutdown is deeply impacting thousands of Federal workers and their families all across the country, including Texas. One Texan who works at the Internal Revenue Service says he has been sleeping in so he only has to worry about eating two meals a day, not three. One woman whose husband is in the Coast Guard drove from Galveston to Ellington Field in Houston--about 40 miles each way--to pick up free diapers for their kids.

On a recent trip home, I heard specific examples of the impact this shutdown has had on the Department of Justice, which I mentioned just a moment ago, and the heartbreaking challenges they are facing every day. These dedicated men and women have chosen their careers in public service. They want to go to work. They want to be able to pay their bills. It is time for us to do our job so they can do theirs with the dignity and the pay they earn.

I want to remind all our colleagues that our constituents did not send us to Washington so we could simply vote no on a less than perfect piece of legislation. If that were the case, we would never get anything done here. We were elected to work with our colleagues to create legislation so we can get to yes, to build consensus, and to solve problems, not to score political points.

Are there certain pieces of legislation that I don't agree with? Of course--parts of this legislation we just voted on. But it does fund priorities critical to our southern border and to the people of Texas. Right now, this is the only bill I have seen that includes priorities of both parties and that carries the President's support.

I voted for this legislation to support the men and women who have been treated as collateral damage throughout this unnecessary government shutdown, those who are forced to apply for food stamps or unemployment who would rather be working, who can't pay their medical bills or for childcare, who not only want this shutdown to end but need for this shutdown to end.

We aren't here to hold show votes on legislation the President won't sign. Just ask the elementary school civics students, and they can tell you that is not how a bill becomes a law.

This was a serious offer by the President to end this shutdown and build the trust and good will necessary to have real reform, and I am disappointed that our colleagues voted against this bill. That was a vote not on the merits of the President's proposal; that was a vote to get on the bill so it could be amended. In other words, our colleagues who voted against the bill aren't even interested in having a conversation about how we solve this problem and how we find our way out of this boxed canyon. Unfortunately, there are those who, for political reasons, continue to lack any interest in negotiating a compromise bill that could earn bipartisan support.

We solve difficult problems every day in the U.S. Congress on a bipartisan basis--every single day--but somehow we have decided we can't solve this problem. And I fear that is not because of the difficulty of the problem presented; it is because of the politics that have paralyzed us and made it impossible for us to bridge our differences.

I thank the President for this comprehensive offer and the majority leader for bringing it to the floor so we could vote on it. I would urge all of our colleagues, now that we have had these two failed votes--we know we are right where we started when we got here today--to work together to try to bridge our differences, to build consensus, and end this shutdown.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee began to hear witnesses on the nomination of Bill Barr to be the next Attorney General of the United States. We heard first, of course, from Mr. Barr himself all day yesterday and today from additional witnesses.

By any standard, Mr. Barr is an exceptionally qualified individual, in part because 27 years ago, he was Attorney General, nominated and confirmed unanimously--nominated by President George Herbert Walker Bush. Under his leadership at the time, the Department of Justice focused on some of the most important law enforcement challenges facing our country at that time. They worked to fight violent crime and combat the drug epidemic, both of which continue to do great harm to communities across the country still today.

As significant as the work done under his leadership was, I was more impressed with the fact that after 27 years, he was willing to take on the task of becoming Attorney General once again. He said he was sort of semiretired. He and his wife were looking forward to spending more time with their children and grandchildren. But he answered the call to public service, and I am grateful that he did. He knows that our Nation needs a strong law-and-order Attorney General at the Department of Justice.

When he spoke at his confirmation hearing more than 2\1/2\ decades ago, he said:

The Attorney General must ensure that the administration of

justice--the enforcement of the law--is above and away from

politics. Nothing could be more destructive of our system of

government, the rule of law, or the Department of Justice as

an institution, than any toleration of political interference

with the enforcement of the law.

He repeated that commitment yesterday, and I think the need for that sort of strong statement is more important today than ever.

I believe Attorney General Barr will be a good Attorney General, assuming what is one of the most challenging positions in the Cabinet because you are a political appointee but you are also the chief law enforcement officer in the country. That sometimes can be difficult to navigate.

As the nominee noted, doing the job and doing it well sometimes requires being prepared to burn your political capital in order to preserve the rule of law. I believe this is the most fundamental quality of a good Attorney General, and having a leader at the helm of the Department of Justice with the right temperament and a fundamental understanding of this responsibility is critical now and forever. In recent years, we witnessed some Attorneys General carrying out actions that repeatedly toed that political line, sometimes crossed it.

Under the Obama administration, the Department of Justice began to veer increasingly away from the impartial administration of law and toward politics. That shift undoubtedly occurred at the hands of President Obama's Attorneys General who were in the driver's seat during his administration, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.

Both Holder's and Lynch's conduct has come under a great deal of scrutiny--even now, after they have left--and for good reason.

For example, under then-Attorney General Holder, there was something called Operation Fast and Furious in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the Department of Justice purposefully allowed the illegal sale of firearms in Mexico in the hopes of being able to track them. Unfortunately, there were a number of casualties, including Border Patrolman Brian Terry, who was killed with one of those firearms in 2010. Attorney General Holder never accepted responsibility

for Brian Terry's death or ever admitted that allowing these guns to walk into Mexico, into the hands of some criminal organizations, was a terrible mistake.

Under his watch, the IRS targeting controversy occurred in which politically aligned groups applying for tax-exempt status faced official oppression based upon their political affiliation.

Then, of course, more recently, let's not forget then-Attorney General Lynch's handling of the Clinton email scandal--something even James Comey, the FBI Director, objected to--along with her famous so- called tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton when his wife was under an active FBI investigation. The conduct of both Holder and Lynch undermined the public's confidence in the impartial administration of justice and law at the Justice Department.

Under the leadership of my friend and our former colleague, Jeff Sessions, the Department of Justice has begun to right the ship and again separate politics from the impartial administration of the law, and I am confident that Mr. Barr will continue to do the same.

During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Barr reaffirmed that politicians should not interfere with criminal investigations, and he likewise committed not to interfere with the special counsel's investigation. He assured us that his allegiance will be to the rule of law, to the Constitution, and to the American people, and that, above all else, he will work to protect the professionalism and integrity of the Department of Justice and the thousands of dedicated public servants who work there.

Not only is Mr. Barr exceptionally qualified for the job, he is prepared on day one to step in and lead with distinction.

The Senate unanimously confirmed his nomination to three different positions at the Department of Justice, and I hope we can work expeditiously to get this fine man to the Department of Justice once again.

I thank Mr. Barr and his entire family for agreeing to bring his talents and his temperament to the Department of Justice at a time when those qualities are so desperately needed, and I look forward to voting yes on his nomination.

Remembering Herb Kelleher

Mr. President, on another matter, I want to share a few words about the passing of one of the airline industry's most unconventional and most successful executives. That would be Herb Kelleher, who cofounded Southwest Airlines.

Herb was born in 1931 in New Jersey, and his young life and early career kept him on the east coast. He graduated from Wesleyan University and New York University School of Law and served as a law clerk for 2 years at the New Jersey Supreme Court and then joined a law firm in Newark. But as fate intervened in this promising young lawyer's career, he met his wife Joan, a native Texan, and they decided to move to the Lone Star State, something he later referred to as the greatest business decision he ever made.

Building America's largest domestic airline carrier was never on Herb's to-do list. In the late 1960s, he was an attorney in San Antonio, when one day his client approached him with an idea about a low-fare airline serving three Texas cities. Tired of spending so much time in the car traveling between San Antonio and Houston and Dallas, he believed they could make point-to-point intrastate travel faster and much cheaper by flying, and also cheaper than other airlines.

Getting their innovative idea off the ground wasn't easy. These men who founded Southwest Airlines slogged through years of legal battles before the airline operated its first flight. Their vision not only led to the creation of a budget airline but also drove down the cost of their competitors, as competition will do.

To maintain their edge, Southwest tried some interesting ideas along the way. After another airline ran an ad calling Southwest a cheap carrier, Herb responded by filming a commercial where he wore a brown paper bag over his head and promised that the airline would gladly provide one to any customer too embarrassed to be seen flying on Southwest Airline.

At one point, to compete with the low fares of other airlines, Southwest started a program to keep customers, and they said: You can either pay the lowest fare or pay full fare and get a full premium bottle of liquor in the process. Well, apparently it worked, and for a short time, I am told, Southwest was the largest liquor distributor in the State of Texas.

I think one of the most distinctly Herb Kelleher stories is of a battle called ``The Malice in Dallas.''

In 1992, Southwest Airlines and another company realized their slogans--``Plane Smart'' and ``Just Plane Smart''--were similar. Rather than settling the matter in court, they settled it by holding a public arm wrestling match.

The 61-year-old, with the cigarette fixed between his teeth, gave his much younger competitor a run for his money, but he couldn't pull off a win. At the end of the match, the two men made donations to each other's chosen charities. They agreed to share the slogan and called it a day.

Each of these stories has Herb Kelleher written all over it. He was known for his gregarious personality, his incredible work ethic, and his penchant for the nontraditional, not to mention his affinity for Wild Turkey.

I first met Herb when I represented him in a lawsuit early in my legal career in San Antonio. He had a larger-than-life personality, and it was a pleasure to know him.

We can all learn a lesson from Herb about the importance of working hard, treating people with respect, and not being afraid to have a little bit of fun along the way. His entrepreneurial spirit was credited with democratizing the skies by disrupting the airline industry, and I believe he was one of the most consequential leaders in American aviation, and we have all benefited from that.

So I join Herb's wife Joan, his children, his grandchildren, his many friends, and, of course, his beloved Southwest Airlines family in mourning the loss of this larger-than-life figure.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I would say to my friend from Virginia, we both serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and of course we have both been intimately involved in the investigation on Russia's activities up to and including the 2016 election.

I would like to point out the hypocrisy of our colleagues across the aisle who refused to take up any legislation whatsoever, such as S. 1, which is on the floor and which would take extraordinarily positive measures to protect our most important allies in the Middle East, including Israel and Jordan. They filibustered that bill and said: We are not going to take up any legislation until the government is back open--100 percent of it.

For the past 2 weeks, the minority leader has paralyzed the work of the Senate, saying they would block the Senate from considering any legislation unrelated to government funding. A number of our colleagues have said--for example, the junior Senator from Virginia said: ``The Senate should vote on nothing else until we vote to reopen the government. Period.'' Senator Merkley said: ``The Senate's schedule cannot be business as usual if we shut down a quarter of the government and just leave it shut down.'' Senator Booker said that Senate Democrats should block consideration of all unrelated bills.

All this comes as a result of the fact that the impetus is on the Democrats to come forward and negotiate a resolution of the shutdown in good faith. But to this point, the Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, and the minority leader, Senator Schumer, have simply refused to negotiate with the President.

I was with the President down in Texas, down along the border, on Thursday. He is willing to negotiate. We know we had broad bipartisan support for the Secure Fence Act, for example, in 2006, authorizing up to 800 miles of fencing on the southern border. The Democratic leader voted for that, and so did Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Later, in 2014, all Democrats voted for $40 billion in border security, including barriers, fencing, and tactical infrastructure along the border. Now they are saying, as the Speaker has said, that somehow this is ``immoral.'' Well, this is hypocrisy at its worst.

Nomination of William Barr

Madam President, on another matter, today the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on the nomination of William Barr to be Attorney General of the United States. Mr. Barr is uniquely qualified for this position in large part because he held the job before. As a matter of fact, 27 years ago, he was nominated by George Herbert Walker Bush to be Attorney General of the United States. He was confirmed by a unanimous voice vote in the Senate. It received little fanfare at the time because it wasn't particularly controversial--nothing like the contentious, partisan confirmation battles we have seen the last 2 years. There wasn't an attempt--at least so far, and I am keeping my fingers crossed--to assassinate Mr. Barr's character or try to decipher the notes in his high school yearbook like we saw in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. Instead, so far, and to the committee's credit, we have focused on his qualifications.

He is clearly smart, articulate, and able. He has a clear understanding of what the role of the Attorney General is and, more importantly, what it is not. An Attorney General should not be a politician. As a matter of fact, the Attorney General has the very difficult job of trying to balance his responsibilities as the chief law enforcement officer in the country enforcing the rule of law along with the fact that he is a political appointee of the President's. To me, that is one of the most difficult positions in the Cabinet to hold. But Mr. Barr has done it before, and I think he can do it again. He, of course, has great institutional knowledge about the Department of Justice.

In addition to Attorney General, he held the job of Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel and Deputy Attorney General before he was promoted to the top job

Back in 1992, when Mr. Barr was confirmed, then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary, Joe Biden--President Obama's Vice President--said he would be a fine Attorney General.

This morning, I heard Mr. Barr discuss the qualities that undoubtedly led Senators on both sides of the aisle to support his confirmation. He spoke of the importance of acting with professionalism and integrity. As a matter of fact, he said that at 68 years old, he basically had decided to semi-retire, only to answer the call by the President to return to public service. He said: I am completely independent. I will make the hard decisions. I will make the right decisions. I will help restore the reputation of the Department of Justice and the FBI to an apolitical, a nonpolitical department, which is exactly what we need.

He wants to make sure that the character and reputation of the Department of Justice is enhanced and restored and then maintained, and then it could withstand even the most trying political times, including those in which we presently live.

He spoke of serving with independence, providing no promises or assurances to anyone or anything, other than to faithfully execute and administer the laws of the United States of America.

It is clear to me that he maintains the same views he held 27 years ago. I share his view that the Department of Justice should function outside of the highly politicalized times we live in. The fair and impartial administration of justice is the highest obligation and duty of this position.

I believe Mr. Barr is an outstanding nominee and, once confirmed, will be an outstanding Attorney General. I look forward to voting yes on his nomination.

Government Funding

Madam President, on the matter of the government shutdown--the 25 percent of the government that is presently not funded--last week, I traveled with the President, along with my colleague Senator Cruz, to the Rio Grande Valley, to McAllen, TX.

After the President held his roundtable, where he saw heroin, methamphetamine, and weapons, and heard about the human trafficking, including sex slavery involving children and girls and women, after that presentation--after the President left, Senator Cruz and I sat down with a number of our constituents--county judges, mayors, law enforcement officers, as well as the folks from Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection. They understand the border better than anybody because they live there. They are deeply concerned about the posturing in Washington and how the political arguments seem to overcome logic and listening to the experts when it comes to border security. I was glad for them to confirm once again what they previously told me: that we need to strengthen those border communities

and keep our country safe, while keeping legitimate trade and commerce flowing across the border.

During our discussion, Scott Luck, Deputy Chief of the Border Patrol, talked about the positive impact of physical barriers and what positive impact they have at targeted locations along the southern border. He said:

The physical barrier has worked every place I have been. I

have been in places where they did not have it; they put it

in and it worked.

He mentioned Douglas, AZ, as one of those. He said:

There were more people coming into the country there than

any other place in the country. I was there. It stopped. It

stopped in California. It stopped in Yuma. It stopped in El

Paso. It will stop wherever we put it.

Despite what our colleagues across the aisle are saying, physical barriers at the border can be effective when coupled with technology and personnel. It doesn't do you much good to have a physical barrier that somebody can go over or around or through and you don't have a Border Patrol agent there to detain them.

Actually, the physical border is the last place you are going to stop people trying to illegally enter into the United States, together with the narcotics and the human trafficking, but it is important to have those tools available to the Border Patrol, and that is what Deputy Chief Luck was stressing. He made the comments and observation that physical barriers alone are not the solution for the entire border--a holistic border security approach also requires technology and personnel.

When we were discussing the need for building physical barriers in strategic locations, my friend, Cameron County Judge Eddie Trevino, said something to Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd that I think encapsulates the whole debate. He was talking to the Border Patrol and CBP and said:

If you tell us where you need it, I think we are all on

board. If the politicians tell us where we need it, I think

that is where we have our concern.

In other words, what Judge Trevino was saying was, let's listen to the experts, the people who know how to use the right combination of technology, tactical infrastructure, and personnel at each given place along the border because it makes no sense to try to treat this like a one-size-fits-all. Anybody who has ever been to the border between the United States and Mexico knows that the geography and topography vary tremendously from place to place.

Let's not try to dictate from Washington, DC, where every dollar goes and in so doing try to micromanage the Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security. Let's leave that to the experts--the men and women who work to protect and secure our border every day.

What we continue to hear and what I continue to advocate is for a layered approach--barriers where they are appropriate, technology, and personnel. That is exactly what we have been talking about. That is what we voted for in 2006 with the Secure Fence Act. The Democrats supported that, along with Republicans. That is what law enforcement officers tell us they need to operate optimally. Unfortunately, it is what Democrats are now refusing to negotiate and provide.

When looking at the border, it is not just physical security we need to be concerned about; we need to be concerned about our economic security as well.

During our discussions last week with local stakeholders, we also focused on the importance of facilitating legitimate trade and travel at our ports of entry. I was shocked by this figure, but the Customs and Border Protection Officer there, Mr. Higgerson, mentioned that the trade from Texas ports alone is valued at $300 billion per year. For the State of Texas and border communities in particular, these ports fuel our economy, and we need to provide additional funding to ensure efficient movement across the border.

One thing we all agree on is that most of the high-end drugs--the heroin, the methamphetamine, and the fentanyl--come through the ports of entry. So let's modernize those. Let's provide the technology that is needed in order to stop the flow of that poison into the United States. Legitimate trade and commerce is the lifeblood not only of our border region in my State, it is also the lifeblood of our Nation's economy. There are 5 million Americans whose jobs depend on binational trade with Mexico alone.

Along with a number of my colleagues from Texas, we are sending a bipartisan letter to President Trump that thanks him for his continued work to secure our southern border. His advocacy for that layered approach, as well as for port of entry improvements, is vital to my State. In that letter, we also address recent rumors to the effect that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' funds might be used for border security purposes, and I have urged the President not to take that route. While I will continue to advocate for additional border security, I believe those funds were intended to support disaster relief and should be used for that purpose. We need both border security and to lend a helping hand to those who are still recovering from natural disasters. We don't have to rob from Peter to pay Paul. We need to do both.

I am grateful for the support that has been shown from the President to the people of Texas both in the days following Hurricane Harvey's landfall and in the nearly year and a half since, and I hope he will continue to work with all of my Texas colleagues and me as we rebuild our communities impacted by Hurricane Harvey and as we work together to secure our border.

I yield.

Madam President, if I could respond to my friend, the Senator from Delaware, he speaks correctly--accurately--about some of the symptoms and, I think, some of the cures that we need to put in place to deal with this extraordinarily complex problem. We would love to continue to work with him on coming up with something. We may not want to call it ``Plan Mexico'' but ``Plan Americas'' because what we really have to deal with is a regional challenge.

He is exactly right in that most of the illegal immigration now is coming from Central America. Gaps in our immigration and human trafficking laws encourage unaccompanied children and family units to come up to the border because they can, essentially, get placed in the United States while they wait for their asylum claims to be determined by a court, and there is a backlog of 700,000 or 800,000 asylum claims. In other words, the criminal organizations that move people for money into the United States have cracked the code and have figured out how to be successful in placing people in the United States.

Unfortunately, it also helps to enrich those organizations that move the poison from south of the border into the United States. They contributed to the deaths of some 70,000 Americans last year alone. I am thinking particularly about the fentanyl, along with the heroin, going from China to Mexico and up across the border. Of that consumed in the United States, 90 percent of it comes from Mexico. I agree that it is the demand here in the United States that enriches the cartels, but they are, more or less, commodity agnostic. In other words, they will do anything that makes them money, these criminal organizations.

We need to have people sit down and work together, and I pledge to work with my colleague to try to do that. Yet we can't get a solution as long as the Speaker of the House calls physical infrastructure or barriers immoral. This is kind of a nonstarter to a conversation that we need to have to try to negotiate our way out of this shutdown.

I welcome working with my friend.

Mr. President, I have 2 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 the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 15, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of William Pelham Barr, of Virginia, to be Attorney General, Department of Justice.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 15, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing.

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

Mr. President, here we are, January 14. Twenty-four days ago, the border security funding and 25 percent of our government funding lapsed.

Democrats refuse to come to the negotiating table with a legitimate offer that would end this partial government shutdown and provide vital funding for border security measures. Their negligence has harmed 800,000 Federal workers who are not being paid while this standoff continues, and it has completely stalled the work here in the Senate because the minority leader, the Senator from New York, has gotten his colleagues to fall in line to block the legislation that is currently on the floor that would offer aid and comfort to our friends and allies in the Middle East, countries like Israel and Jordan. So it has completely stalled our work here in the Senate, as well, and, sadly, their efforts have sought to make border security more of a political football than the national security issue that it is.

What I find so cynical is the fact that Democrats have drawn a line in the sand over something they have largely supported in the past. For example, in 2006 we passed the Secure Fence Act. This legislation called for more than 800 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and it authorized additional layered security that we keep discussing-- things like vehicle barriers, sensor technology, cameras, and lighting. That bill passed by 80 to 19--80 to 19--exactly the same kind of border security measures we are talking about today and that Democrats have shut down 25 percent of the government over--80 to 19.

Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, and Hillary Clinton all supported the Secure Fence Act. Yet their opposition to President Trump and anything and everything that he wants has somehow become an article of faith for the radical left.

A few years later, in 2013, the Senate, with Democrats holding the majority, voted on the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, sometimes known as the Gang of 8 comprehensive immigration bill. That bill, among other things, provided funding for infrastructure--that is, barriers along the border--as well as personnel--the types of things we continue to advocate for today. In total, that bill appropriated $46 billion for border security.

So the Democrats--Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi--have shut down the government over $5 billion that the President has requested for border security. Yet 54 Democrats--every single one, in 2013--voted for $46 billion for border security.

Well, today, they turn their nose up at the President's request for $5.7 billion, and it makes no sense whatsoever unless you look through the lens of partisan political gamesmanship, because rational actors, reasonable people trying to find a solution, could easily come up with a solution based on this history. It wouldn't take 24 days. It wouldn't take 24 hours--maybe 24 minutes--to come up with a bipartisan, bicameral solution that the President would sign.

So what are we talking about?

Well, we are talking about the same thing we talked about back in 2006 and in 2013. We are talking about infrastructure. The President likes to call it a wall. Other people call it a fence. But it includes things like vehicle barriers along the Arizona-Mexico border. This is exactly the sort of things we talked about and voted for in 2006 and 2013. The majority of Democrats supported those measures in the past. Yet today they seem proud of what they have wrought, which is that one- quarter of our Federal Government is being held hostage over the same exact measures.

Their continued intransigence and refusal to get serious about negotiating shows one of two things: either their party has completely flipped their position on commonsense border security measures or they simply refuse to work with the President because they loathe him. Either way, they should be ashamed, they should be embarrassed, but they are not.

While Democrats continue to sit on their hands, the President has said he will consider declaring a national emergency--left with few other options--in order to provide funds for border security. I don't believe declaring a national emergency is either necessary or productive, although I do support the President's request for $5.7 billion for border security. One of the most fundamental constitutional responsibilities of Congress is to provide funding for our government. It is our job. It is our job, not the President's job. This standoff should be resolved as all other funding disagreements have been in the past, where everybody comes to the table with a serious offer and everybody negotiates in good faith. In a democracy, nobody gets 100 percent of what they want.

I support the President's effort to secure our borders, period, full stop, but I also believe taking a step like declaring a national emergency and diverting disaster relief to border security would seriously hurt those who are still recovering from the impact of natural disasters like Hurricane Harvey. The storm that hit my State was the largest rain event in American history. More than 50 inches of rain fell on parts of Houston over about 5 days. It destroyed homes, businesses, and communities, and though a great deal of progress has been made, we are still healing.

Last year, Congress and the President worked very hard to secure nearly $90 billion in disaster relief for the people of Texas and other States and territories impacted by the devastating hurricanes and wildfires during that time period--an effort, by the way, that the administration strongly supported. In Texas, that money was needed to both support recovery and rebuilding efforts as well as fund projects that would mitigate future flooding from hurricanes. Hurricane Harvey isn't the first hurricane we have sustained, and it will not be the last. We need to get ready for the next one. Diverting those funds away to support border security would be a major step backward and could further harm the victims of Hurricane Harvey.

So what Democrats, by their intransigence, have forced the President to do is look at other options like taking money away from disaster relief for border security, but the fact is, we need to do both. We can't rob Peter to pay Paul. We need to do both.

I have been grateful for President Trump's continued support of my State as well as other States affected by natural disasters, and it is critical that every dollar of the money supporting Hurricane Harvey recovery is preserved to finish the job. I know that is true, and I know we all feel that way about natural disasters that have hit our State.

Sometimes the Senate is referred to as the greatest deliberative body in the world. At times like this, when congressional leaders like Senator Schumer and Ms. Pelosi refuse to negotiate with the President, I wonder whether the Senate is actually blocked by Senate Democrats from proceeding to consider important foreign affairs legislation. I wonder if we can still look ourselves in the mirror and call ourselves the world's greatest deliberative body.

Historically, we have been able to reach a consensus on very tough issues, far more controversial than this, because we all believe American interests should come first, that our constituents should come first, and we are there to serve their interests, not merely to play political games and score political points.

So it is time for our Democratic friends to come back to the negotiating table so we can finally end this unnecessary and harmful shutdown, and, hopefully in the process, the 800,000 Federal workers who missed their paycheck last Friday can get paid during this next pay period, and we can reopen the Federal Government so we can serve the interests of the American people, as we should have done 24 days ago.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Douglas McDonough, a congressional fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this year.