Floor Statements

Mr. President, from El Paso to Brownsville, TX, my State

shares a 1,200-mile border with Mexico. If you were daring enough to attempt to walk that entire stretch, you would trek through deserts, cross mountains, through cities, and probably end up getting a little wet in the Rio Grande River. You would meet folks who are proud of the strong bonds our country has with our southern neighbor. Many, of course, have relatives in both countries. You would talk to sheriffs, police officers, Border Patrol agents, all who care deeply about protecting our communities. And undoubtedly, you would end up eating some good Tex-Mex along the way.

In my time in the Senate, I have had the opportunity to meet countless Texans who live and work along the southern border, and I seek their advice and counsel on what Congress ought to do, what the Federal Government ought to do to protect them and their communities. What they tell me is that Texans and the Nation rely on the billions of dollars of legitimate trade that comes across the ports of entry with Mexico. But with the growing volume of goods crossing our borders and the persistent staff shortages for Customs and Border Protection, they want to make sure there are no security gaps that can be exploited by criminals or slow down the legal movement of goods. That is a concern I share, and I continue to advocate for additional improvements in our ports of entry to protect this vital lifeline for our economy, as well as our security.

But just as these communities care deeply about the economic benefits of our shared border, they care deeply, of course, about their own safety and security. They believe that both can peacefully coexist, and so do I.

During my visits, I have witnessed some of the horrific treatment that migrants receive at the hands of the criminals, including those who smuggle them. The truth is, these criminal organizations that move people and drugs and contraband across our border exploit our porous border and care nothing for human life. It is a commodity. It is the way they make money. They care nothing for the people they hurt, so they wring another dollar out of someone else's misery on a daily basis. It is a high-volume business, too, and incredibly lucrative.

I have seen the stash houses with windows lined with tin foil, and inside, a veritable cesspool that makes you want to gag or lose what you had for lunch. This is where the human smugglers cram large groups of illegal immigrants in unimaginable conditions while awaiting their transit to the interior of the United States.

I have seen their logbooks where they record their corrupt transactions, correlating real-life human beings with their value in dollars and cents.

I have talked to Border Patrol agents who have discovered tractor trailers full of people attempting to enter our country, some of whom never complete their journey because they die from exposure or are smothered to death in the crammed quarters.

In Brooks County, TX, where the Falfurrias checkpoint of the Border Patrol is located, about 50 miles north of the border, I have seen unmarked graves of the migrants who were trying to cross vast swaths of South Texas in the August heat in order to bypass the Border Patrol checkpoint but then were left to die by the smugglers. Their graves are marked only with identities like ``skull case'' or ``unknown female.''

Border security is not immoral, as Speaker Pelosi has shamefully claimed, but refusing to act in the face of evil is immoral. It is clear that there is a crisis, as it is clear that it is our responsibility to restore safety and security and order. In my wildest dreams, I never would have imagined we would be debating whether we should secure our borders, as we apparently are now. That is something on which we should all agree. Instead, we should be focused on how to secure our borders and how to do it in a smart, responsible way.

In my experience, learning from the experts, they tell me there is no one-size-fits-all solution. You can imagine that with a 1,200-mile border with just Texas and Mexico, with the variety of topography and geography, one-size-fits-all does not work. What works best in the Rio Grande Valley doesn't necessarily work in an urban environment like El Paso, with Juarez right across the international bridge.

We need to customize solutions that meet the specific need rather than trying to dictate from here in Washington--thousands of miles away--a solution that solves nothing. We need to look at border security as a combination of three things: physical infrastructure-- yes, that includes barriers, walls, fences, vehicle barriers in appropriate locations, but it also includes technology--radar, ground sensors, drones, aerostats. This is a layered approach that provides flexibility for the experts on the ground to determine what is best for each sector, what is best for each part of our immense border, and implement the changes necessary to achieve desired results. As I said, in many areas, the landscape and location mean physical barriers may not be needed and may not be practical. In rural areas, technology-- censor technology or cameras--may be sufficient, but we know we need additional boots on the ground, too, because it is not enough to put a barrier in place or have a radar or ground censor in place if you don't have the Border Patrol to show up and detain people they discover trying to make their way illegally into the United States or bringing drugs into the United States. So some combination of these three elements I think is always going to be needed, no matter where you are talking about.

I am proud of the work we have done in the Senate, generally speaking, and I know when we work together we can do a lot of good, but logic and experience should tell us we shouldn't be the ones deciding how every inch of our southern border is secure. I don't claim to be an expert, although I have gone to school on the topic and spent a lot of time talking to those people who are experts and learning from them. I believe we need to let those experts drive the decision-making process on the right combination of resources needed to achieve operational control of the border. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues' refusal to invest in real border security has landed us in a partial government shutdown resulting in 800,000 Federal workers who on Friday will not get a paycheck. That is unnecessary. Unfortunately, they are collateral damage to a political game which we should not be playing. I know many of these 800,000 Federal workers are already anxious about how they will make a car payment or how they will pay their mortgage or their rent or how they will put food on the table. It is completely unnecessary, this shutdown.

I am afraid this debate on border security of course is not really a debate about border security at all; it is a way for congressional Democrats to take a stand against a President they oppose while putting border communities at risk and sending the men and women who protect them to work without pay. This battle has gone on too long, and I can only hope Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer show some leadership rather than continue to take the low road. This shouldn't be about winning a partisan fight; it should be about protecting our citizens and stemming the tide of illegal immigration, drugs, and contraband entering our country. If there were ever a time, now is the time for common sense to prevail and end this senseless shutdown.

Remembering Richard Arvin Overton

Mr. President, on another matter, I want to share a few words about an American hero I had the pleasure to get to know, Mr. Richard Arvin Overton. Richard's story began more than a century ago on May 11, 1906, in Bastrop County, TX. Throughout his young life, he held a variety of jobs--landscaping, picking cotton, working at a furniture store, and building homes.

In 1940, Richard enlisted in the U.S. Army and began his military service at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio. Serving with the 1887th Engineer Battalion, an all-Black unit, one of his first stops was Pearl Harbor, the day after what we now know as the West Loch Disaster.

In an interview in 2016, Richard recalled that day, seeing the water turn red from the blood of his brothers, saying: ``I didn't look the same, but I got out all right.'' This was only the first stop on Richard's tour that led him to the Pacific theater. His service included stops in Guam, Palau, and Iwo

Jima, where he witnessed firsthand some of the darkest days in our country's modern history.

When the war ended, Richard returned to Texas and built a home on Hamilton Avenue. He originally reentered the furniture business and then began working for the State treasury department. At the sprite age of 85, Richard Overton decided to retire.

In 2013, the 107-year-old Richard Overton made his first trip to Washington, DC, with an Honor Flight. He was able to witness the memorial built to honor his service and his comrades who died in battle, a sight that brought him to tears.

While his military service alone deserves our praise, that is not the only thing that brought Richard to national attention. His comments about the keys to his longevity and long life and particularly his daily routine made Richard an internet sensation. His penchant for enjoying coffee with whiskey and 12 cigars a day won hearts and caused all of us to question the secret to his long life. Richard also enjoyed a bowl of ice cream every night--always butter pecan. He called this the Overton diet and welcomed anyone interested to give it a shot. Richard used his newfound fame to continue life as he always had but with more fans eager to stop by and say hello while he was sitting on the front porch. He continued to live in the same house he built after the war, although the street name has now been changed to carry his name--Richard Overton Avenue.

I first met Richard in 2013, and I remember the day my wife Sandy and I met him in his home in Austin. I was taken aback to learn he had just gotten through mowing his lawn that morning--107 years old and still mowing his lawn.

Sadly, on December 27, 2018, the story of this American hero came to an end. At the ripe old age of 112 years, Richard passed away, leaving a host of cousins and extended family members.

Yesterday, I introduced a resolution, with my colleague Senator Cruz, to honor this great man, his military service, and his enduring legacy. Our country has lost a true patriot, our State has lost a legend, and our community has lost a dear friend.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to begin consideration of legislation that will address some of the seemingly never-ending challenges the world--including the United States--is facing in the Middle East.

The decision made at the beginning of the 20th century by then First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, to convert British ships from coal to oil for fuel changed world history by making access to Middle East oil reserves a national security imperative for all developed nations.

More recently, on 9/11 of 2001, when nearly 3,000 Americans lost their lives in a terrorist attack directed from Afghanistan on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we learned a hard lesson: Although separated by an ocean, what happens in the region does not stay in the region.

Finally, with the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the nuclear aspirations of Iran--the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world--to attain them, the relative stability and security of the Middle East have a direct connection to our national security, as well as that of our allies, like Israel.

With the administration's recent announcement that the United States will begin withdrawing troops from Syria, this debate and these votes could not be more timely.

While I am comforted by National Security Advisor John Brennan's recent statement that the withdrawal from Syria will be conditions- based, the precise details of how and when it will be executed remain to be seen. One thing, however, is perfectly clear: We cannot allow the creation of a power vacuum in the Middle East to bolster our adversaries' influence in the region. That is precisely what this legislation addresses. The Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act incorporates four bipartisan, noncontroversial bills that were nearly enacted last year, but the clock on the 115th Congress ran out on December 31. As we begin what I hope will be another productive year in the Senate, I am glad we will have a chance to vote on this legislation.

Our national interests demand that we fully support and ensure the security of Israel--our closest ally in the region. As the majority leader said last week, this bill affirms that the United States needs to do more than just talk the talk; we must also walk the walk to support Israel's security.

This legislation will help Israel maintain its qualitative military edge against ongoing threats by authorizing military assistance and allowing the transfer of equipment and defensive weapons. Importantly, it will also assist Israel in countering the emerging threat of unmanned aerial vehicles deployed by Iran, in particular.

In addition to supporting Israel, it will empower State and local governments in the United States to counter the anti-Israel boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement--better known as BDS--and its discriminatory economic warfare against the Jewish state.

In addition to nurturing our relationship with Israel, the bill also recognizes the importance of supporting Jordan--another key regional ally. It reauthorizes legislation to strengthen our defense cooperation and support Jordan's response to the overwhelming humanitarian crisis caused by the Syrian civil war. According to the United Nations, there are more than 740,000 refugees in Jordan. That equates to 89 refugees per 1,000 inhabitants, making them the second highest refugee host nation per capita in the world.

The impact of the crisis in Syria is immense and potentially destabilizing and requires our support to maintain the peace.

Finally, this bill takes critical steps to address the ongoing war and humanitarian crisis in Syria by providing aid to impacted communities and condemns the heinous human rights violations committed by the murderous Assad regime.

Until this horrendous conflict is resolved, new sanctions will be imposed on anyone who supports Syria either financially or militarily.

It is true that this bill will not solve all the problems in the Middle East. It will not, for example, provide justice to innocent civilians killed by the Assad regime. It will not rebuild the communities treated as collateral damage throughout this crisis. But it is a step to ensure our allies are prepared to fight for and defend our shared national security interests.

Senate Democrats have indicated, unfortunately, that they are likely to block this legislation from coming to the floor, as their discussions with the President on border security remain at an impasse. Leader McConnell, though, has made it clear that the Senate will not waste time holding show votes on legislation that the President will not sign, so we continue to wait for Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer to take serious, credible action to break that impasse. Until that time, there is a lot of work we can and should do, such as debating and voting on this legislation, which will protect our national security interests in the Middle East.

Twenty-five percent of our government has already been shut down because of this impasse. I urge our Democratic colleagues in the Senate not to shut down the work of the Senate too.

I want to thank the majority leader for scheduling this important debate and vote, and I look forward to voting yes when the time comes.

Mr. President, as I mentioned, this partial government shutdown continues, now on its 18th day. But 18 days in, not much has changed. The newly elected Democratic House refused to come to the negotiating table with a serious offer or to negotiate in good faith.

This entire debate has been surreal. I would say it has been a joke, but it is really not funny. It has now degenerated into a game of silly semantics, while losing sight of just how much is at stake for the people affected.

A secure and vibrant border is critical to the safety and livelihood of our entire country, and it, of course, plays a vital part in the daily life for many Texans, especially those who live and work in the border region. If you visit El Paso, for example, out West, you will see firsthand how interconnected the city is with its neighbor, Juarez. Mexico is literally on the other side of the international bridge. Each day at that single port of entry, an average of 20,000 people cross the border on foot legally--going to work, going to school, visiting friends and family, or shopping. That is in addition to the 35,000 car crossings and the 2,500 cargo trucks that cross each day just at the El Paso port of entry.

I often compare the United States and Mexico to an old married couple who have occasional differences but who can't get divorced. We depend on one another, and we depend on a safe, secure, and efficient border to allow both countries to live in harmony.

Not everyone or everything attempting to cross the border is in our country's best interest. Transnational criminals, drug smugglers, and human traffickers try to take advantage of any opportunity, any gaps in our border, and they use it to infiltrate, threaten, and endanger our communities.

For too long, our frontline officers and agents haven't had the tools and resources they need to do their job. Whether it is outdated infrastructure, personnel shortages, or technology, the fact remains that we need additional border security funding to empower these hard- working officers and agents to complete their mission at both our ports of entry and between those ports of entry.

After talking to the experts--Border Patrol officials in Texas, as well as local stakeholders--I introduced legislation in the fall of 2017 to address a number of their concerns. That legislation, called the Building America's Trust Act, would have authorized approximately $15 billion over 4 years for a long-term border security and interior enforcement strategy. Notably, the bill provided a great deal of discretion to the Department of Homeland Security's experts on the ground to determine what tactics were needed and where.

As my friend Manuel Padilla, former Chief of the Border Patrol's Rio Grande Valley Sector, once told me--he said: The answer to border security from the Border Patrol's perspective is finding the right balance of three things: personnel, technology, and infrastructure.

The landscape along the U.S.-Mexico border--particularly the 1,200 miles of common border between Mexico and Texas--the geography varies significantly, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution to border security. That is why it is important to listen and learn from law enforcement and key stakeholders how to adapt the right mix to each area. That way, we can ensure we are deploying the most effective and practical solutions to achieve operational control along the southern border.

Yes, we need physical infrastructure in places--a fence, a wall, a vehicle barrier, for example--because the hard-working agents and officers on the ground tell us that it works, and we would benefit from more of it. But we also need personnel to enforce the laws along the border and ensure our ports of entry are operating efficiently. And, yes, we need technology, things like scanners to scan for drugs that are embedded in shipments that come across the border. We need drones, radar, and sensors to help maximize border security, as well as access to the Rio Grande for Border Patrol agents so they can police the border for illegal entry.

This shouldn't be a partisan debate, and historically, our differences on this topic have not been so polarizing. I think the nature of our political system today makes it easy to forget that not too long ago, border security was something supported by both political parties.

In 2006, the Senate passed the Secure Fence Act by a vote of 80 to 19. That is what I would call a bipartisan victory. Among those who voted for that bill include many current and former leaders of the Democratic Party, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, then-Senator Barack Obama, and then-Senator Hillary Clinton. They didn't believe that fences and walls and physical barriers were immoral, as apparently the current Speaker of the House of Representatives does. Not only did that legislation call for more than 800 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, it also authorized the other important components of border security that I talked about, things like technology and personnel. That was in the 2006.

In 2013, more recently, all 54 Democratic Senators voted for $46 billion in border security--every single one--and now President Trump's request for $5 billion is somehow a nonstarter.

The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act provided funding for, yes, infrastructure, personnel, and technology. That is exactly the right mix that Chief Padilla mentioned, which I referred to a moment ago. These are really the same types of issues we are talking about today. These are not radical ideas. We need a sensible combination of physical barriers, technology, and personnel.

My Democratic colleagues supported border security during the Bush administration. They supported border security during the Obama administration. Now I urge them to come to the table with a serious proposal to help secure our border and end this standoff and to stop the foolishness and the political games.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I now suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Montana (Mr. Blunt) and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. President, today I rise to speak for the last time on the Senate floor as majority whip. With the swearing in of our colleagues in January, will come the changing of the guard in our elected leadership in which I have been proud to serve since 2006.

As we all know, the whip is also known as the assistant majority leader, and I have been proud to assist our majority leader in all we have worked on together to accomplish in the Senate. I often tell people that ``whip'' sounds a lot more coercive than it really is because in the Senate, you can't really make somebody do something they don't want to do.

I understand the term comes from the old country. It referred to the person in fox hunting who was responsible for keeping the dogs from straying during the chase--something I have never done and, no doubt, will never do.

One of the fathers of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, in the middle of a contentious debate in the British House of Commons, used the term as far back as 1769. When he used it, he was talking about enforcing discipline, not as a way to punish disobedience but as a way to stay focused on your goal. I think that meaning still holds because the overarching goal of anyone who serves in this position is to keep the team together.

The first Republican whip was James Wadsworth, elected in 1915. He served in the Spanish-American War. He opposed Prohibition, and he was chairman of what was then known as the Committee on Military Affairs.

In more recent times, the whips have been great Senators and friends, such as Don Nickles, Trent Lott, Jon Kyl, and of course, the current majority

leader, Mitch McConnell. All of these men have provided good examples and sound counsel to me at one time or another.

What we have tried to do together is to build consensus, to make progress, little by little, for the American people, to seek to inform and gently persuade. Mainly, you listen, and then, one by one, you address your colleagues' concerns. Then it is the job of the whip to count the votes, as the Senate leader passes or defeats legislation, and provide advice and consent on nominees.

It is the job of the whip operation to keep its finger on the pulse of the conference, to help the leader find a way to get from point A, a bill introduced, to point B, getting it to the floor, and then to point C, when the bill passes and becomes law. That road can be awfully bumpy at times. Sometimes, it is just like riding a roller coaster.

As with any job, there are parts of the job you love more and those parts you love less. There has been a lot of handshaking after big victories, such as the Criminal Justice Reform bill we passed with a huge bipartisan majority last night, and then there is the headshaking after disappointments.

It is true that occasionally in this job you come up short, but you learn from your mistakes, you course correct, and that failure can help you succeed later on down the road. That is what happened to us in tax reform. We learned from our disappointing outcome on healthcare and applied it to our next major objective. With tax reform, we laid the groundwork by going through the Finance Committee--regular order. We helped inform. We corrected misinformation, and we responded to feedback. We incorporated input from all Senators who wanted to be constructive and get to yes, and the final bill changed a lot along the way.

Another victory I can think of is the passage of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act in 2016, which I think helped lay the groundwork for what we were able to achieve this Congress with the passage of landmark opioid legislation.

Of course, there were a historic number of judges we were able to confirm during the first 2 years of the Trump administration, culminating in not one, but two outstanding additions to the U.S. Supreme Court: Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

But the biggest challenge we faced this last year was the nomination of now-Justice Kavanaugh--hands down. Never in my experience has there been a bill or a nomination for which every single vote mattered more, and never have I seen the dynamics change so rapidly. The trajectory of the nomination fluctuated day by day, hour by hour, and sometimes it seemed minute by minute. As new press reports or rumors circulated, the whip operation worked overtime to make sure our colleagues had the most up-to-date information and knew what was and what was not accurate. To refute one rumor or accusation, my whip staff even had to find copies of 30-year-old high school yearbooks and go to the Library of Congress to research drinking games. I know it sounds silly, but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. The research our whip staff put together made the difference for some of our colleagues in the homestretch.

Eventually, as we now know, after a lot of hard work and long hours by an awful lot of people, Judge Kavanaugh was confirmed. But near- death experiences can make life all that much more sweet. So the difficulties we faced together on the Kavanaugh nomination made his eventual confirmation all the more satisfying.

Other highlights--the things I will remember the most and am most proud of--include the landmark bill we passed to combat human trafficking. The Justice for Victims of Human Trafficking Act--after 4 weeks on the Senate floor, thanks to Leader McConnell and his perseverance, that bill ultimately passed 99 to 0, and we should be very proud of that.

Following the horrific shooting at Sutherland Springs, TX, I introduced legislation to strengthen the gaps in the background check system for purchasing firearms. Those gaps had allowed a crazed shooter to cruelly take innocent lives one Sunday morning at a small Baptist Church outside of San Antonio.

After we came together in a bipartisan way to pass this bill, I returned to Sutherland Springs. Being with those families, the community, and Pastor Frank Pomeroy--he and his wife lost their daughter--and letting them know we not only shared in their grieving but we had acted together to save lives by preventing future tragedies was one of the most gratifying moments I have experienced in the Senate. We couldn't wipe away their tears, but we could show the families that their loss had not been in vain.

We have done a lot of other things that--while they didn't make the front-page news--will greatly impact the lives of Texans and all Americans. We helped America become the energy powerhouse we knew it could be--creating jobs along the way--by facilitating liquefied natural gas exports, and we ended the export ban on crude oil all together. These will have geopolitical consequences that will benefit the entire planet.

We passed big bills, like the farm bill, and smaller but impactful bills, like occupational licensing reform, and legislation that improved trade between Mexico and Canada.

Then came Hurricane Harvey, the most extreme rain event in our Nation's history. It hit the Texas gulf coast, and then after recovery was undertaken, we had the monumental task of putting together significant disaster relief for Texas as part of a larger disaster relief package that benefited many parts of the Nation.

Our job still isn't over, but by linking arms together, the Texas delegation, which we call ``Team Texas,'' worked with Governor Abbott and other State and local leaders to get them what was needed from the Federal Government so that people could begin to put their lives back together.

As whip, one of the best parts of my job was getting to know my colleagues better. I learned to listen to them more carefully. I learned that each of them has personal goals, political needs, regional interests, and philosophical principles that influence their decision making.

We share a lot in common, but each of us is unique in mostly fascinating but sometimes infuriating ways. Even when you can't convince someone your position is the right one, you always can learn from that interaction, and that is valuable information that can be used on the next tough vote.

I also learned a lot about the Senate as an institution. What makes this institution so interesting are the men and women who work here. We have doctors, business men and women, and farmers. Heaven knows, we have more than enough lawyers. We have spouses, parents, grandparents, great-grandparents. We come from different political parties and different parts of the country, but we share a common goal: to do right for the people we are privileged to represent and to make our country a little bit better than when we came.

We have very public arguments, but we also get a lot accomplished in quieter moments--over lunch, in the Senate well, in the cloakroom, or sometimes in the Senate gym. During those moments, what shines through is my overwhelming impression of the intelligence, the seriousness of purpose, and the goodwill of the people who work here. That instills in me confidence that despite the swirling controversies that seem to engulf us, the Senate, as an institution, is strong. It is durable and will continue long after we are gone.

The late great Bob Bullock, who served for many years as our State's Lieutenant Governor, participating in Texas politics for most or about half of the 20th century, used to say that there are two types of politicians: those who want to be someone and those who want to do something. I will say that in my experience, most people I interact with here are of the latter persuasion. They want to do something good for the American people.

I want to express my best wishes to my friend, Senator Thune, the senior Senator from South Dakota, who is taking over the whip job in January. I have every confidence in his ability to do the job, but I also confessed to him it is not all sunshine and lollipops. There will be long days and tough votes. We have all heard the expression that being the whip is like trying to keep the bullfrogs in the wheelbarrow; as soon as you get one in, another one jumps out.

But I look forward to continuing to help Senator Thune, the next whip, and the conference and the Senate in any way I can. He has my telephone number.

Of course, when you are whip--like any job--you rely on your team members. I couldn't have gotten through these 6 years without a lot of help. First and foremost, I owe a tremendous amount of gratitude to my mentor and friend, Leader McConnell. There is no one in the country who has done more to advance the conservative cause in recent times than Senator McConnell--no one. Robert Caro called LBJ the Master of the Senate. I would like to nominate another one: Mitch McConnell.

Under Mitch's leadership in the last 2 years alone, we have bolstered our Nation's economy, fixed our Tax Code, and achieved real regulatory reform. We have transformed our Judiciary, improved veterans' healthcare, and addressed critical public health needs like the opioid crisis. And that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

We have certainly had our fair share of nail-biters--I seem to remember a certain debt ceiling vote, for example--and those accomplishments I mentioned were not easy, given the slim margins. But with Senator McConnell's leadership and more than a few prayers along the way, we did it together. I am proud of our record, and I am grateful for his trust and confidence.

Of course, we couldn't have been successful without a strong and reliable team of deputy whips led by Senator Mike Crapo. I leaned on my deputy whip team regularly, and time and again, they delivered. So to Senators Blunt, Capito, Crapo, Fischer, Gardner, Lankford, Portman, Scott, Tillis, and Young, thank you.

I also want to thank my whip staff, both current and former. This includes John Chapuis, Sam Beaver, Noah McCullough, Jody Hernandez, Emily Kirlin, Jonny Slemrod, and my first chief of staff, Russ Thomasson.

What has been so amazing to me is how seamlessly my whip staff also worked with my Texas official staff as well. We all worked, literally, as one team. I thank all of my Texas staff for their contributions to our successes.

We all rely on our staffs around here a great deal, and that is doubly true of my entire staff over the last 6 years. I have come to think of the whip operation as really an intelligence operation. These outstanding men and women have been my eyes and ears. They are all incredibly smart. They are devoted and hard-working.

I say to all of them: Thank you for everything you have done to serve the conference and the Senate as a whole.

As whip, you are provided with a security detail comprised of Capitol Police officers. These men and women are extraordinary professionals who have become like family. Their work often takes them away from their own families and friends as they travel around the country and sometimes miss holidays and special occasions. They, like all of the Capitol Police, keep the people who work here and visit here safe. We all appreciate what they do for us each and every day.

Finally, I want to say a few words about my chief of staff, Monica Popp, who is the chief of staff of my whip office.

Monica is often the first person and the last person on my staff I talk to each day. If Beth Jafari, who is my chief of staff in my Texas office, is the glue that keeps our operation together and operating at maximum efficiency, Monica is the spark plug of the operation.

As impressive as her knowledge of the Senate is and of how the U.S. Government functions, that is not what sets her apart. She often, in her own gentle but determined way, has pressed me to make just one more call, to meet just one more time with a colleague, or to try just a little harder to nail down the winning votes. She is exactly the type of person you need to have in your corner, but it is her sunny disposition--her optimism--that is infectious. In addition to her extraordinary competence, that makes her indispensable.

Monica is known for cultivating and maintaining strong relationships not only in the Senate but in the House and in the executive branch. It is not just limited to my party; some of her closest colleagues work in the leadership offices of our Democratic colleagues. The big bipartisan achievements I mentioned earlier could not have happened without Monica and her ability to lead a team and work across the aisle. Part of the reason she is so effective is she wants to know everything. She even wants to know what Members have for breakfast because she knows how circumstances and small events can sometimes provide insight in unexpected ways.

Here is how our staff describes her:

``She is a problem solver.''

``When you think you're stuck, she'll find creative ways to get a solution.''

The most instructive, I think, is this: ``You want to be around her just to learn.''

I couldn't agree more.

To Monica, I say thank you. We couldn't have done it without you.

Even though I will no longer be serving as the majority whip, I am not going anywhere. Believe me--serving 28 million Texans here in the Senate is a big enough job for anyone. To borrow a phrase from a great American leader, our late President George Herbert Walker Bush--he said: I am a Texan and an American. What more can a man ask for?

Indeed, it is an honor and a privilege to represent the great people of Texas, and I believe my time as whip has only taught me to be a better representative of my fellow Texans. As an elected leader, I have learned that sometimes you have to do things nobody else wants to do because they are controversial or they are risky, but I stand ready to continue to take risks and accept controversy in the pursuit of worthy causes.

I close simply by saying it has been a privilege to serve as the whip for Texas, for the Republican conference, and for the Senate.

Often, when I am introduced to audiences here and at home, the introducers will refer to me as the No. 2 person in the Senate. Occasionally, they will call me the second most powerful person in the Senate--obviously an exaggeration. Yet I have never been quite able to bring myself to correct them in public if only to save them the embarrassment. Let me just say I will now return to my previous life as the second most powerful person in my household and to my continued service to Texas and the world's greatest deliberative body.

I yield the floor.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. President, I have a number of consent requests and wrapup as we make our way toward the conclusion of the 115th Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Presiding Officer be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions during today and tomorrow's session of the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6400 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6893, which was received from the House.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from consideration of H.R. 1162 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate the message to accompany S. 2248.

The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives:

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 2248) entitled

``An Act to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide certain burial

benefits for spouses and children of veterans who are buried

in tribal cemeteries, and for other purposes.'', do pass with

an amendment.

I move to concur in the House amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that the motion be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.