John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, over the last few weeks, given the nature of this unprecedented virus, Members of Congress have been able to come together during divided times to support our country's response. First, we passed an emergency funding bill to bolster our response in the critical early stages of community spread. Since it was signed into law nearly 2 weeks ago, it has provided funding for the personal protective equipment our healthcare professionals rely on and has supported our community health centers and State and local health departments. It has also bolstered our resources in the race to develop a vaccine, possible treatments, and more tests. It has been a strong start, but we have known all along that it would just be the first step. As the scope of this virus continues to grow and challenge our country in new ways, we are working as quickly as possible to respond in realtime. As we know, more and more Americans are staying home and practicing a new term, a new phrase--social distancing. It is one that I really had not heard of before this virus. While that is a sign of progress in our fight to slow the spread of the coronavirus, it is handicapping millions of businesses and workers. As travel plans are abandoned, as public events are canceled, and as restaurants and shops are closing their doors or scaling back their operations, many people are losing their jobs and their livelihoods. A recent poll found that nearly one in five American households has experienced a layoff or reduced work hours, and those who work in the service or hospitality industry are particularly hard hit. Think about the waiter at your favorite local restaurant, the person who cuts your hair, the individual who sweeps the aisles after a basketball game, the housekeeper who cleans rooms at a hotel. They are among the millions of workers across the country who are trying to survive this new reality. Here in the Senate, we are working as quickly as possible to support them. Yesterday, we passed a bill to help individuals and families who face economic fallout from this outbreak. We improved paid sick leave for those who have been impacted by the coronavirus, and we have strengthened our food security for Americans of all ages. We also made coronavirus testing free for all Americans. No one should be afraid to get tested because of the cost. For all of the benefits this legislation will deliver, it will not address every problem. We knew that it would just be the second step in a journey of undetermined length. Yet, rather than holding that bill up and doing nothing, in order to include additional measures we would like to see, we worked as quickly as possible to put that second phase into action, and we then moved on to phase 3. In building on the first two steps we have taken, it is time to make bold moves to support our economy. We need to be sure it can survive this pandemic in the short term and thrive in the long term. The American people are resilient. We have been through national disasters, like 9/11 and the huge economic meltdown and great recession of 2008, but in my experience, we have never had anything quite like the coronavirus pandemic. Yet the American people have always maintained their good attitudes and worked through these crises and have come out stronger and better in the end. As I mentioned, the shift in our daily routines is having a serious impact on the businesses we are used to supporting every day in our local communities. Sadly, those small businesses that employ about half of all U.S. workers are among the hardest hit. Here is the thing. They bear no responsibility for the economic conditions they find themselves in. This is something totally beyond our control. The restaurants, the hardware stores, the salons, the gyms, and the countless other small businesses that are operated by our neighbors are facing tough decisions. Over the last couple of days, I have talked about a number of my constituents, fellow Texans, who are experiencing hardship--one whose revenue is down about 60 percent, one who is rotating her employees so each can at least get some work, and one who is terrified that this could sink the business he has worked on for 25 years. As we continue working on this third phase of the coronavirus response and recovery, my top priority is to support these small business owners and their employees, who have been left with no way to collect paychecks, no way to provide for their families, and no way to provide for the necessities of life. Yesterday, Senate Republicans met with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and discussed wide-ranging proposals to provide relief to workers and small businesses. There is one thing we all agreed on. We need to take immediate action to put money directly into the hands of these displaced workers. Work opportunities may be disappearing for some workers, but the expenses don't go away. People need money to buy groceries, to pay their bills, and to stay afloat until things normalize. There are ongoing discussions about the most efficient and most effective way to get money into the hands of those who have been the most negatively impacted, but I want to assure all Texans we are working as quickly as possible to find the best solution. The centerpiece of the phase 3 deal will be that of direct aid to American workers who have been displaced, but it must also include additional actions to protect the integrity of our healthcare system. As more and more people are being tested and diagnosed, our hospitals and healthcare providers are needing additional support so they can continue to serve patients. We are working to get our healthcare providers the resources and equipment they need so they can continue fighting this virus on the frontlines. I thank the majority leader, Senator McConnell, for publicly committing to keep the Senate here in session until we pass legislation that meets these high demands--a decision that I fully support. While the Senate's work continues, I know many Americans are feeling some helplessness and uncertainty at a time when the best thing you can do may be to just stay home. While older Americans face a higher risk if they come into contact with the virus, every one of us has a role we can play in beating this virus. I reiterate remarks made earlier this week by Dr. Deborah Birx, who is coordinating the White House Coronavirus Task Force. She continues to stress the importance of millennials--one of the largest generation cohorts--in saying that this is the core group who will stop this virus. We all know young people feel bulletproof and that their lives will be eternal. Many a time, they don't understand that they are just as mortal as the rest of us. Because these younger individuals are at a lower risk of contracting the virus, they think it is fine to continue with their normal routines as long as they aren't experiencing symptoms. Yet, if they are infected, they can still transmit the virus to others, especially to the older, more vulnerable people in their communities. Dr. Birx has pointed out that we often talk about the ``greatest generation,'' which is the World War II generation--people like my mom and dad and those who answered the call to serve and fought for our freedoms. Yet now is the time for the younger generation, the millennials, to answer a different call and take the necessary precautions to protect that ``greatest generation,'' which is among the most vulnerable. I am proud of the fact that, when Texas faces a crisis, whether it be hurricanes or tornadoes that have devastated our State in recent years, Texans come together and support one another. The truth is, this is also how I would describe Americans when they react to an attack, whether it be 9/11, the great recession of 2008, or now this coronavirus. This is not a time for us to engage in business as usual. This is a time for us to come together in a new and very important but different way. Stay home, and take this seriously. We will get through this together. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as healthcare professionals, first responders, and communities across our country work around the clock to fight the spread of the coronavirus, our televisions and news feeds have been filled with a lot of numbers--the number of new cases reported each day, the rising number of fatalities, unfortunately, and the volatile ups and downs of the stock market. All of this data paints a picture of the widening scope of this outbreak on a national scale, but it fails to represent the impact it is having on individuals and on small businesses in our communities. I think of people like Joe Kenney, who opened Cobbleheads Bar & Grill in Brownsville, TX, nearly 25 years ago. Like other restaurant owners around the country, he is trying to adapt so he can keep his doors open while he follows guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. He canceled the restaurant's popular St. Patrick's Day celebration and, instead, offered corned beef and cabbage as a takeout option, but he is nervous about just how long he can hold on and how he will be able to stay afloat. Joe said: ``Shutting down two, three, four weeks, you can leave 25 years on the table with what we put into this place.'' Joe, to his credit, is especially, worried about his more than 30 employees and what will happen to them. This is a familiar story for countless small businesses and their employees--small businesses that are losing customers through no fault of their own. Erin Willis owns RM 12:20 Bistro in northeast Dallas. When she heard Mayor Johnson's announcement of limiting restaurants to takeout service, she said: ``I just hope we can survive this.'' Like Joe, Erin is mostly concerned about the well-being of her staff. Hourly workers, particularly those who rely on tips, are seeing fewer and fewer opportunities to collect paychecks. Erin is rotating employees so that everyone can have some work, but the fears about how long this could last are really settling in. She said: The service industry is their livelihood. If we all close, they literally have nothing. As more and more Americans are staying home, small businesses and their employees are the hardest hit, but the impact does not end with them. The hard stop on large gatherings doesn't just mean businesses, schools, and workplaces are shutting down; it means vital community events, including things like blood drives, are being canceled. Officials from the South Texas Blood & Tissue Center said this has put their community blood supply at risk of collapse, and while this isn't related to treating those who have been diagnosed with the coronavirus, it is vital to the ongoing, everyday work of our healthcare system. Blood donations help people who lose blood during major surgeries or after having suffered traumatic injuries. They also help those who have chronic conditions and require occasional blood transfusions. Hospitals and donation centers are taking every precaution to protect donors while they are fulfilling the need of blood donations, and I encourage all Texans who are healthy and at low risk of contracting the coronavirus to consider donating blood. During times like these, when it is, perhaps, easy to feel that circumstances are beyond your control, this is one small step each of us can take to support our communities. I know this is a time of serious uncertainty for both the physical and financial health of our families and our country, but I want to assure my constituents--the 29 million people I am privileged to represent in the State of Texas--that the Senate is working to provide them with the relief that we can. Less than 2 weeks ago, the President signed a bill we passed that provided $8.3 billion in emergency funding to combat the virus, which has sent vital funding toward treating and preventing the spread of the virus, including toward the purchase of masks and personal protective equipment, as well as in supporting the development of a vaccine, possible treatments, and more diagnostics. This was an important first step toward bolstering our response in the early phases of community spread, and now we are working to address the larger impact this virus is having on American workers, families, and our economy. Soon, the Senate will take another bipartisan step of providing support by passing the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. This legislation will go a long way in providing immediate relief for those who are struggling to make ends meet during this challenging time. It creates a new Federal emergency paid sick leave program for those who are impacted by the coronavirus. Whether workers are diagnosed with the virus or are caring for dependents who are affected, they will be able to take up to 10 days of paid sick leave, and many Texas workers will have access to 12 weeks of paid leave in order to care for dependents because of coronavirus-related school closures. This legislation makes important changes to unemployment insurance to ensure that Texans can take advantage of these benefits during this time of uncertainty. It also provides food security for Americans of all ages, from schoolchildren who rely on free lunches at school to seniors who are unable to leave their homes, for every American deserves access to basic nutrition. This bill also makes coronavirus testing free of charge for all Americans, and it includes a range of measures to support the healthcare professionals who are literally on the frontlines of this fight. I proudly support the bill, and I am eager to get it to the President for his signature. We shouldn't delay in sending it to his desk. We have been able to come together and move two bills through Congress that support healthcare workers, neighbors, and communities that are being impacted by the coronavirus. I hope this trend of bipartisanship will continue in the coming weeks and months as we work to build on the actions we have already taken. I echo the comment made by the majority leader that this is only the beginning of our efforts to support our country. We will keep working this week and next and for however long it takes in order to assist American workers and families, to support our local businesses, and to secure both the immediate and long-term viability of our economy. Via three task forces, the Senate has already begun the work of putting together the next economic recovery legislation, and we will not leave until we get that bill passed, too. While most Americans' daily lives have been upended by the spread of the coronavirus, there are countless men and women who continue to go to work and fill critical needs in our society. We owe a debt of gratitude to the dedicated healthcare professionals who are on the frontlines of this pandemic; to the scientists who are working diligently to develop a vaccine; to the first responders who are continuing to expose their own health for our safety; to the farmers and ranchers and producers who are keeping us fed; to the grocery store employees who are restocking shelves; and to the countless others who are leaving their homes and their families each morning to keep us safe and healthy. We need to say thank you to each of them. As these men and women continue doing everything they can to respond to the spread of the coronavirus, the Senate will do the same. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, across our country, we are seeing cities, schools, businesses, and other organizations take the necessary and serious precautions to keep the American people safe from the spread of the coronavirus. School districts, colleges, and universities are canceling in-person classes, churches are moving services online, professional sports teams are hitting pause on their regular season, airlines are canceling flights, and many Main Street businesses are closing their doors. I know that all of this is a little disorienting and certainly alarming. But while these measures aren't normal, it is a sign that we are heeding advice from the experts, people like Dr. Fauci and organizations like the Centers for Disease Control. It is a sign that we are doing what we can to prevent or at least slow down community spread. It is a sign that we are standing together and making progress, ultimately expecting that we will get through this together. The difficult decisions that need to be made by elected officials, business owners, and community leaders when they decide to shut down normal parts of our daily lives--these are not easy decisions for them to make. Despite the public health benefits these closures will provide, we are also expecting other serious--mainly economic--consequences. Our economic engine is being brought to a halt as people are staying home rather than producing, and small businesses and their employees in particular are feeling the impact. Jason Phillips is a manager at Zoli's Pizza in Fort Worth, TX, and he has been in the service industry for more than 20 years. Still, he said he has never been in a situation quite like this one. He said this past Saturday that Zoli's Pizza had about half the number of customers they have come to expect. Steven Startz has experienced a similar struggle. Last November, he opened a new restaurant in New Braunfels, TX, just north of San Antonio, called Le Citron European Cafe and Bistro. The first year for any new restaurant is bound to be tough. As luck would have it, a week after they opened, an oven broke, and it had to be replaced. But nothing has prepared Steven for the months of February and March, what they would bring. He was hoping, as you might imagine, for an uptick in tourists, which would mean more business, but instead a pandemic has kept everybody at home. Rather than a positive bump in the business, revenue for his young restaurant is down 60 percent. As a result, he has had to cut staff, and he hasn't hired replacements for the employees he has recently lost. This is an all-too-familiar struggle for millions of Americans who are unable to go to work during this pandemic and are facing serious economic uncertainty about their future. Those in the service industry--especially those who rely on tips--are among the hardest hit. I am glad to say that soon the Senate will take action to provide additional relief. As the Presiding Officer knows, we passed an $8.3 billion emergency package to help fast-track discovery of a vaccine and to make sure that our healthcare sector is prepared for what is coming at it, or at least better prepared. The House has now passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which we are in the process of taking up and will hopefully finish this week, and then I expect there will be a third installment--a stimulus package that Treasury Secretary Mnuchin will be up here on the Hill talking about today to try to help employees and employers and entire industries survive this economic trauma. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act will help protect both the physical and financial health of our country by supporting workers and their families impacted by the virus. It will remove financial barriers for Texans who need access to coronavirus testing, regardless of income or insurance coverage. This is one of the things I talked to Governor Abbott about in particular. He said that there are two things that Texas needs. He said it is more testing and it is more protective equipment, personal protective equipment--PPEs, as they are called--in order for this testing to take place. While it is still true--according to the Centers for Disease Control--that you should not be tested unless you are experiencing symptoms and referred by a healthcare provider, it is clear that more testing is going to be needed, and indeed we have heard from the President and the Vice President and the administration in general that we expect a huge ramping up of the capacity to test people so they can know whether they are positive and they need to stay in isolation or possibly need healthcare treatment or whether, like the President and one of our colleagues here, Senator Graham, they are negative, and obviously the peace of mind that comes with that. This legislation removes all financial barriers for that testing For those who have private insurance, it requires that all plans cover the cost of testing, including the cost of a provider, an urgent care center, and emergency room visits in order to get tested. As I said, right now, CDC protocol calls for a healthcare provider to make a diagnosis based on symptoms that would then lead to a test. Those are the same zero-cost measures that would apply to those covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE. It also requires the National Disaster Medical System to reimburse the cost of testing for patients who are uninsured. In short, the bottom line is, no one will have to pay to be tested for the coronavirus, period. This legislation also includes a range of provisions to provide financial security for those who are unable to work, and that is because they are protecting the public health. It will create a new Federal emergency paid sick leave program for those impacted by the coronavirus. That means that any Texan--any American who is diagnosed, quarantining, or caring for a dependent who was impacted by this virus will be able to take 14 days of paid sick leave. And many Texas workers will be able to access 12 weeks of paid leave for virus-related long- term absences. These protections include workers who stay home to care for their loved ones, including staying home with their kids due to school closures. This bill also makes changes to unemployment insurance. It will temporarily waive requirements for workers to prove they are actively searching for work during the public health emergency response, and it will provide $1 billion in emergency grants for States to support processing and paying unemployment insurance benefits. In other words, we know that people are staying home because their employers have told them their businesses have been shut down. Even though they are not sick, they are suffering financial loss. The purpose of this is to make sure that through the vehicle of unemployment insurance, they do get some money so that they can take care of their necessities and keep putting food on the table. This bill also takes serious steps to strengthen food security for those who are struggling with reliable access to healthy meals. This is one of the things I heard from a friend of mine out in West Texas just today concerned about the food banks that provide a safety net for people without access to regular, healthy food. This bill actually will send $400 million to local food banks, which are supporting those low- income families across the country, including in places like West Texas. We know that older Americans are the most vulnerable when it comes to the coronavirus, and many are afraid to leave their homes at the risk of getting sick. This legislation provides a quarter of a billion dollars for the senior nutrition program to provide home-delivered meals to low-income seniors. It also provides half a billion dollars for Federal food stamps. It provides flexibility on work requirements, so those who lose their jobs or aren't able to work can receive assistance when they need it the most. I mentioned the food banks and the school lunch program. Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved a request from Texas with regard to school lunches. Millions of Texas students are currently eligible for free lunch programs, but, obviously, when the schools close, they don't get access to that nutrition. But thanks to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Texas schools can continue to serve free meals to low-income students, even when their schools are closed. This legislation also includes a range of measures to support healthcare workers, veterans, small businesses, and countless Texans who are struggling financially as a result of this pandemic. Of course, we know we are all racing against the clock to respond to this virus, and it is important for Congress to act promptly to demonstrate to the American people that we understand the problem and that we are using every tool in our toolbox to respond to this crisis on their behalf. In any major event--whether it is a natural disaster or a pandemic-- we need an all-of-government response. All of us need to be cooperating and working on the same page, moving as efficiently as we possibly can. As I said, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act builds on the $8.3 billion emergency spending bill that was signed into law by President Trump earlier this month. It also complements the national emergency declaration made by President Trump last week and Governor Abbott's disaster declaration for the State of Texas. That is why I plan to support this bill when a vote is scheduled. I know there are other Senators who have said they have good ideas. Many of them are intriguing and I think would make a positive addition to this legislation, but I think in times like this, the thing we need to do is to work together and function expeditiously to get this legislation passed. And because we know there is going to be another installment--a third installment--to respond to the coronavirus, perhaps those other good ideas can be included in that additional legislation, which we will pass before we recess. I was interested to hear the majority leader say that we will not recess until we take up and pass that third installment. I think his sense of urgency and his sense of determination and focus is well justified, and I congratulate him for that. I think we need to all pull together in a similar spirit of unity. I thank the Trump administration, especially Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, for working so quickly with Speaker Pelosi to build this package so that we can provide relief for American workers and families as soon as possible. This is not the first bill to strengthen our response to the coronavirus, and it will not be our last. As I said, there is a bipartisan commitment to passing the third phase to strengthen our economy and support the industries and businesses that have been hit the hardest by this pandemic. Leader McConnell has made clear his commitment to finding a bold, bipartisan solution to the economic challenges we are facing and will continue to face in the months ahead, and I am proud to support this effort. While conversations continue regarding the next phase of our coronavirus response and what that may look like, I believe it is time to pass the Families First Coronavirus Response Act so that we provide this needed relief to the American people as soon as possible. (Mr. SULLIVAN assumed the Chair.)

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, earlier today, as the Senate knows now, Leader McConnell announced that we would cancel our State work period so we could continue to work on legislation here in Washington, DC, to help families and our communities get through the economic effect of the coronavirus's spread. I am glad he made that decision, and I look forward to continuing to work on those issues for the benefit of our constituents and the Nation. This situation calls for an all-of-government response, and it will allow us additional time to hammer out a bipartisan agreement to respond to the ripple effect that this outbreak is having in Texas and across the country. As we continue our discussions on this legislation, I would just urge my colleagues that this is a time to put partisanship aside and stop playing politics, if there ever was one. There is actually precedent for that. At the height of the Ebola crisis in 2014, Republicans in the Senate worked with our Democratic colleagues and President Obama to ensure we were ready to treat Texans and other Americans who needed care from that particular disease. We need to come together to do the same now, not to use the opportunity to attack or score political points or to try to damage our opponents. Unfortunately, that seems to be the first impulse of some of our friends across the Capitol Chamber. Most of the public concern is focused on the elderly, on cruise ship travelers, and those with underlying medical conditions, but we need to think of every family, every college student, and to make sure that everyone who is worrying about how to make ends meet during this particular crisis because they had to stay home and miss work has their concerns addressed as well. This virus could disrupt everyone's daily routine in one way or the other, and as we have seen from the departure of some of our colleagues for self-quarantining, we are truly in this together. I am glad we will be staying in session to try to bring as much relief and reassurance as we can in this uncertain time, and I look forward to all of us, Republicans and Democrats, the House and the Senate and the White House working together to get every American ready for what is to come. It is not just the Senate that is altering its plans due to the coronavirus. Across the country, serious measures are taking place out of an abundance of caution to keep the American people safe. Some schools are choosing to close their doors, nursing homes are barring visitors, and major events like South by Southwest in Austin are canceling. On the global scale, we are seeing an unprecedented action, including all of Italy--some 60 million people--going on a complete lockdown. For many Americans, it seems like this public health crisis has escalated incredibly quickly. We went from never having heard of this new virus to constant news coverage about its growing reach within a matter of weeks. But this outbreak began long before the average American even knew it existed, and it was no accident that Chinese officials kept the rest of the world in the dark. One of first people to sound the alarm about the novel virus--that is what they call it, the novel coronavirus--was 34-year-old Chinese doctor Li Wenliang, who, sadly, became a victim of the coronavirus. On December 30 of last year, after seeing several patients who he believed at the time to have SARS, another type of coronavirus, Dr. Li messaged a group of medical school classmates to let them know that he had seen something new and different and potentially dangerous. Dr. Li told them that these were confirmed cases of coronavirus infection, but the exact strain was still being subtyped. He also urged them to have their families and friends take protective measures, but these messages were soon shared much wider than the intended audience, and the Chinese Communist Party and the government quickly stepped in to stop this information from being spread. Chinese police reprimanded Dr. Li and several others for ``spreading rumors'' about the virus. In the Chinese Government's effort to carefully conceal information about the rapid spread of symptoms throughout the city of Wuhan, this amounted to a big threat. They continued to take extreme measures to assure the Chinese people that there was no need for them to be concerned. They even refused to acknowledge the risk of human-to-human transmission, which is responsible for the global spread of this virus. While this is a novel coronavirus strain, the underlying story is familiar. Chinese officials learn about a deadly outbreak of a new virus; they try to conceal the news; they aren't transparent with their own people, much less other countries; and when the word begins to spread beyond their borders, they try to downplay the seriousness, even going so far as to manipulate data about the number of cases or fatalities. We saw this story line play out with the bird flu in the late 1990s and again with the SARS epidemic in the early 2000s. This is just the latest example of the Chinese Communist Party's failure in the face of a public health crisis. They continue to deny the facts and put their pride before public safety. It is a symptom of a much larger centralized censorship that we have come to associate with the Chinese Government, one that represents a threat to the rest of the world. Imagine if the situation were different, if the government had listened to Dr. Li's initial warnings, if they had reached out to international aid organizations and asked for assistance, deployed additional resources to hospitals in Wuhan, and told the Chinese people to exercise normal caution. Now, there is no way to be sure, but I imagine the current situation would look somewhat different. China's censorship seriously handicapped our global response to this new virus, and they continue to release inconsistent and misleading statistics about the current state of the virus. They have reported that the number of new cases continues to decrease, but I ask you: How can we possibly trust this data? How can we know that this isn't just the latest attempt to downplay the crisis? While China's lack of transparency on the coronavirus has, without a doubt, had the greatest global impact, it is not the only country guilty of misrepresenting the nature of the threat in the rest of the world. We also suspect massive censorship from Iran, which is battling one of the world's largest outbreaks. According to the Coronavirus Resource Center, which is operated at Johns Hopkins University, Iran has more than 9,000 cases. For reference, out of the more than 120,000 cases worldwide, China has far and away the greatest number, with more than 80,000. Italy is a distant second with more than 10,000, but Iran is not far behind. Just as China sought to keep initial reports of the virus quiet and downplay the impact, so did Iran. The leadership in Iran urged the Iranian people to vote in last month's sham election, saying rumors about the virus were being pedaled by the United States to suppress voter turnout. They mocked the concept of quarantines. They even exported their masks to China, expecting that the coronavirus would have no impact on their country. As we predicted then and now know, the Iranian leaders were absolutely wrong. They are now in the throes of trying to control the spread of the virus, which has claimed the lives of more than 350 people in Iran, and that is just the ones we know about. It is widely believed that Iran, like China, is suppressing data to make the situation seem less dire than it really is, and it is not just the civilians who are being impacted. Yesterday reports surfaced that Iran's Senior Vice President and two other Cabinet members have the coronavirus. That comes after previous reports of other current and former officials being admitted to hospitals and at least two deaths. The actions taken by the leaders of these countries--Iran and China-- have, without a doubt, contributed to the rapid rise and spread of the coronavirus. They have concealed information; they have misrepresented the facts; and they have lied to their own citizens and the global community, all in their own self-interest. The reflexive censorship from China and Iran put the rest of the world at greater risk, and it handicapped our preparation for ways to address it. As our leaders, health officials, doctors, nurses, and scientists continue to work around the clock to contain this virus, we have to have transparency, and we have to know the facts. If we are going to have any success on a global scale dealing with the coronavirus, we need honesty and transparency from all countries. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Calendar No. 439, S.J. Res. 56, be indefinitely postponed.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last several weeks, the world has watched closely as the coronavirus has spread from China to more than 100 countries around the world. Since this rapid spread began--before cases were discovered in at least 35 States, including the District of Columbia--folks in my hometown of San Antonio were already providing topnotch care for Americans evacuated from Wuhan Province overseas with suspected exposure. From the first evacuees from China to more than 120 passengers from the Diamond Princess cruise ship, to those who will soon arrive from the Grand Princess cruise ship, the dedicated healthcare professionals in San Antonio have been operating--have been hitting on all cylinders. So far, Lackland Air Force Base has been used to quarantine 235 evacuees, with hundreds more to arrive in the coming days. I must say, they have done a good job of managing this rapidly evolving situation, but that is not to say there haven't been challenges. A few weeks ago, I organized a meeting with officials from the city of San Antonio, including the mayor and two city council persons, as well as the Department of Health and Human Services and the Defense Department, to discuss the ongoing mission and any concerns the city might have. Anytime officials at every level of government are working together--whether it is in response to a natural disaster or a public health emergency--coordination is key. You have to make sure everybody is operating on the same page and regularly sharing information--something that was a challenge in the beginning and remains a challenge today. At one point, we were able to get everybody in the same room to discuss not only the response to the virus but the steps to be taken to protect the general public in the surrounding area. Of course, that work doesn't start and end at Lackland in San Antonio. Hospitals around the State are facing a great deal of pressure and uncertainty surrounding the virus and working to ensure that they are prepared to treat potential coronavirus patients without impacting their normal operations is an urgent concern. Last week, I helped organize a conference call with the Texas Hospital Association and officials from Health and Human Services and the Texas Department of State Health Services to discuss some of the issues of concern to hospitals serving on the frontline all across our State. There have been a lot of news stories about the shortage of masks and personal protective equipment for healthcare workers and subsequent price gouging, and that is a big concern for these hospitals--many of which serve rural populations. As I told folks on that call, communication in these situations is critical. It seems so obvious, but it is not done unless you insist upon it. I was particularly glad to hear personally their concerns so we can make sure we are doing what is needed on our end in Washington, DC, to support them. I appreciate Texas's incredible healthcare professionals who have been working to treat patients in their care and prevent the coronavirus from spreading to the general public. The city of San Antonio--I have to single out in particular--has been carrying the weight of the struggle for a number of weeks now, and it has come at quite a significant cost to city taxpayers. Fortunately, last week, the President signed an $8.3 billion funding bill to support our Nation's response to the coronavirus. It will send vital funding for treating and preventing the spread of the virus, including the purchase of masks and personal protective equipment, as well as supporting the development of a vaccine. The funding bill will also include money for State and local communities, including San Antonio, which have been at the forefront of the battle at home. That makes $950 million available for reimbursement for the costs Texas and other States have incurred while monitoring and treating these individuals. It is a start in the process to repay San Antonio for the work they have done to help our Nation mitigate the impact of the coronavirus. I appreciate Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Leahy for including this reimbursement funding in the legislation and working so closely with all of us to get the relief on the way as soon as possible. Over the last couple of days, we have witnessed the ripple effect the coronavirus threat has had on the markets, and the next big question on everyone's mind is how this virus will impact the economy. Yesterday we had the opportunity to discuss potential options with President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Secretary Mnuchin, and we are continuing to work to identify the best path forward. Unfortunately, there doesn't yet seem to be a bipartisan effort to try to reach a consensus--something we need. One of our Democratic colleagues suggested that the best way to prevent economic damage is to stop the spread of the virus. I can't argue with that logic, but unless that Senator knows something the rest of us don't know, that is not exactly a productive use of our time. We know we need to stop the virus, but we also need to deal with the economic fallout as well. When we were in a position in 2014 with the Ebola crisis, we didn't hear a lot of griping about what President Obama was doing. We found ways to work with him for the betterment of our communities in the country. So I hope that at a time when we are confronting this threat, we can work together. That includes the Speaker and the minority leader here, all of us together to try to solve this problem. It is not a time to play politics. It is a time for us to work together in the Nation's interest. Keeping the American people safe and healthy and keeping our economy strong should be a shared bipartisan goal. I hope our colleagues--all of our colleagues--will keep that in mind, just as we did when we worked with President Obama in 2014. While the American people are rightly taking precautions to protect themselves and their loved ones, it is important to remember there is no reason to panic. Preparation, yes; panic, no. The leaders at the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Health and Human Services continue to remind all of us that the risk for the average American remains low, and the best defense against the virus is to use the same personal hygiene practices that our mother taught us when we were young. To help communicate what those practices are, as well as other information, my office has created a unique web page on my official website, cornyn.senate.gov. This will serve as a platform to provide information to all Texans who have questions about the virus and may be of interest to anybody who is concerned about what the government is doing to deal with the virus. If you are looking for information on how to prevent the spread of the virus, what Congress is doing to help, where you can find the latest number of cases in Texas, we have compiled all of the relevant links in one place. I know I speak on behalf of all Texans when I thank the dedicated healthcare professionals around the State and around the Nation for providing the highest quality care for people who come down with the virus. I am grateful for everyone who is unified in this fight and who are working to stop the spread of the virus and, ultimately, develop a vaccine. On one final note, let me say a word about my friend and colleague Senator Cruz. Over the weekend, he announced he would self-quarantine after coming into contact with someone who was later determined to have the coronavirus. I want to thank him for having the courage to step forward and to do what any one of us should do if we are exposed to somebody with the coronavirus, if we know it: to monitor our health and make sure we don't spread it to others and to seek care from a healthcare professional should we begin to come down with worrisome symptoms. His is a great reminder for all Americans to take this potential risk seriously and that we should all be joined together to do everything we can to keep our communities safe and healthy. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, student debt and student loans are a frequent topic of conversation, and, of course, that is what we are discussing here today. As someone who took about 20 years to pay off my law school loans, this is personal. Fortunately, I was able to do so due to generous interest rates and lending that helped facilitate people pursuing higher education and beyond. Across the United States, student loan debt totals nearly $1.6 trillion and is made up of some 45 million borrowers. As more and more Americans are going to college and beyond, which is a good thing, this widespread problem isn't going to go away any time soon. I agree that we need to take some action here in Washington to address the financial burden for those with existing debt and to help give prospective students a better understanding of what the debt that they will assume will mean to them in their future life, before it is too late. One of the leading candidates for President on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Sanders, has suggested that we just make education free and that we eliminate all debt. Well, that is a fantasy. There is no such thing as free. I am tempted to quote Milton Friedman, who said: There is no such thing as a free lunch. Of course, what he meant by that is that somebody, eventually, will pay. It may not be the immediate person who is the object of your bounty, but somebody will pay. It is not financially responsible to just suggest that you are going to wipe away all debt, and it is certainly not fair to those who worked hard to earn the money to pay for their school only to find that those who did not find themselves with no debt. We have to come up with some commonsense answers, not just live in a fantasy land. Of course, to say that we are going to wipe away the debt is not fair to the parents who started saving for their kids' college even before they started walking or to the college student who worked multiple jobs to graduate with little or no debt at all or decided to go to community college at a lower cost before they then transferred to a 4-year institution and found a way to mitigate or keep their debt manageable. This idea of wiping away debt or making everything free is unfair to the person who chose not to go to college, only then to be saddled with someone else's debt. That is not fair. So the problem with wiping away debt is that it is never really gone. You just pass the responsibility on to someone else, and we see that concept--that mentality--at play here today, when it comes to this rule promulgated by the Trump administration that our friends across the aisle seek to reverse. Last fall, the Department of Education took a big step to forgive loans for students who have been defrauded by an institution of higher education without placing a serious burden on taxpayers. I think that is a good thing. People who commit fraud ought to be held to account and those loans should be forgiven, but the burden should not be placed on taxpayers. There have been similar regulations around for decades, and, in 2016, the Obama administration made some serious changes that actually broadened the types of claims a student can make. They issued a rule that said a school's substantial misrepresentation could result in a student's loans being forgiven. But if my time in a courtroom taught me anything, it is that a good lawyer could portray even a factually accurate advertisement as somehow a misrepresentation, and there is no requirement that it be material but just that there be some abstract misrepresentation. I don't have any doubt about the intent of the law and that the intention is good, but the concept is far too broad and the sad truth is, being so broad, it is ripe for abuse, and that is exactly what the current rule in place sought to change--to maintain the ability to relieve debt as a result of fraud, but not make it so broad that it was subject to further abuse. The new rule establishes a clear standard for students to get individual debt relief and helps those impacted by school closures to find a way to finish their degree. It also takes big steps to hold schools accountable, which I believe is absolutely critical. We have this strange system where the school itself receives the tuition but has no accountability if the student is unable to complete their course of study or ends up getting a degree or a certificate in something that does not generate the income they need in order to pay that debt back. So we need to find ways to hold schools responsible, as well--as well as prevent predatory behavior from impacting more students, for example, targeting of veterans and then draining their GI bill benefits and leaving them with basically nothing to show for it. Those are the types of things we ought to be focusing on. Overall, this rule--the underlying rule that our Democratic colleagues seek to reverse--includes commonsense reforms to ensure it achieves the goal of helping students who are defrauded, while preventing taxpayers from footing the bill for a far-too-broad definition of what constitutes a misrepresentation. It is disappointing to see that they are trying to take us back to the previous rule, which was so ripe for abuse. In doing so, it would cause serious harm to students and schools and to the American taxpayer. They will end up left holding the bag. Rather than zeroing out the loan balance for tens of millions of borrowers or allowing broad and vague allegations of fraud, we need to look at targeted changes that can make a huge difference. One place that I mentioned a moment ago where we need to focus is our veterans. I have heard from a number of my constituents who are straddled with student debt--many before the time they actually served in the military. If someone goes to college after leaving the military, the GI bill of rights will cover a substantial part of their education. But what about those who went to college or graduate school before they went into the military, those who took out loans prior to their service? Well, in most cases, the GI bill cannot be applied retroactively, and servicemembers are left footing the bill for an education that otherwise would have been covered if they had gone to school after their military service. Well, I don't think we should categorically exempt student debt and tuition incurred before military service and thus make the GI bill of rights, if you go into the military after that, worth basically nothing. These men and women should have the choice and the flexibility to use the benefits they have earned to pay off their student loans--in other words, use their GI bill of right retroactively, just as they would be able to use them pursuing a new degree. I will be introducing legislation soon to make that change and to help our servicemembers address loan debt using the benefits that they have already earned. We can't just look at preexisting debt, though. We need to ensure that prospective students are making wise financial decisions on the front end. Unfortunately, that is easier said than done. There is no clear system that makes it easy for students to compare financial aid packages from one school to another and to decide what the true cost of each will be. Many times, it is like comparing apples and oranges, and sometimes it can be downright misleading. Depending on how a school displays information about scholarships or other financial information, the difference in the pricetag can be pretty stark. It doesn't matter whether you are a 17-year-old heading straight to college from high school or somebody who has been in the workforce for years and is now heading back to school. The process is far too confusing, and it does not need to be. There are a lot of resources to help students get a clearer picture about their loan obligations and their expected salary after graduation and how that will impact their loan payments. Every student who incurs a penny of debt ought to have the information they need to be able to determine what amount of debt is acceptable in light of their future earning capacity and whether they will actually be able to get a degree that will allow them to pay back the money they borrowed for their school. I believe that is a shared responsibility. Not only is that something that the student bears responsibility for, but I think the school they attend bears responsibility as well. At the very least, we ought to provide accurate information. For example, the Department of Education has a calculator on their website that lets students calculate the net price of a degree before ever deciding which school to go to or what kind of loan to take out. The issue, though, is that this information isn't always easy to find and colleges and universities are not doing a great job at promoting it. That needs to change. I am a proud cosponsor of several pieces of legislation that would help prospective students better understand the cost of their higher education on the front end. Three of these bills have been introduced by our friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, and would simplify the process for prospective students. One of these bills would standardize the format in terms of financial aid so that students aren't comparing apples to oranges; they are actually comparing apples to apples. Another would improve both the effectiveness and access to net-price calculators to help students make informed decisions before even deciding where to apply. The third would strengthen student loan counseling requirements to schools, so students are made aware of every option available, making it less likely that they will borrow more than they are likely to be able to repay. So despite what our colleagues across the aisle are saying, outright loan forgiveness across the board isn't the only path here. There are other options which I intend to pursue to make incremental changes that will have a huge impact on people working to repay their student debt without spreading that burden to each and every single American taxpayer. While these ideas may not fit on a bumper sticker, that does not mean they are not worth pursuing. I look forward to working with our colleagues to try to address this problem of mounting student debt and the difficulty many students have of paying that debt back because of misinformation or bad decisions they made, unaided by the schools they attend, to determine whether the degree they are pursuing and the debt they are incurring is actually realistic in light of their future income-earning capacity. We can address this sensibly and responsibly and in a way that does not affect each and every American taxpayer. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday our colleague, the senior Senator from New York, headed across the street to join a pro-abortion rally outside the Supreme Court Building, where he made deeply disturbing comments about two of the Justices sitting on the Supreme Court. He said these words: I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. He certainly didn't mince words. The minority leader of the U.S. Senate threatened two sitting Supreme Court Justices based on the potential outcome of a case they are considering. That is the only way to interpret what he said. It is no surprise to any of us that the Senator from New York is no fan of the two most recent additions on the Court, but a fiery floor speech and a downright threat of violence are two very different things. We have heard some of our Democratic colleagues voice their misgivings about the Court, but no one, to my knowledge, has sunk so low as to threaten sitting Justices. As you would expect, the shock and outrage were immediate. Liberal legal scholar Laurence Tribe denounced Senator Schumer. Even Chief Justice Roberts issued a rare public rebuke, calling the comments not only inappropriate but dangerous. The simple end to this story would be that our colleague would apologize to Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, and to the American people, but instead of doing that, he has doubled down. His office has accused the Chief Justice somehow of bias and said Senator Schumer was referring to Republican lawmakers, not the Associate Justices, as if inciting violence against Republican lawmakers is somehow acceptable, too, in the wake of what happened to Steve Scalise and other Members of Congress just a short time previously. But the minority leader did not fumble over words. He clearly named Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in his threat, and when it caught the inevitable firestorm, his office deliberately tried to mislead the American people about what he said. ``[P]ay the price. You won't know what hit you''--those are not the types of statements we need from any elected official, let alone one of the highest ranking Democrats in the country, nor are they a good example because others--maybe vulnerable persons--who hear words like that may become incited to take things into their own hands in innumerable ways that we can't anticipate. Unfortunately, some of our colleagues on the other side, including the junior Senator from Rhode Island, fell in line and chose to echo the minority leader in criticizing the Chief Justice. It doesn't matter what case is before the Supreme Court or what ruling is ultimately handed down; congressional leaders must set an example for the American people and respect the independence of the judiciary and the three coequal branches of government. We have had innumerable discussions about hate speech and threats of violence against our leaders and politicians. The last thing we need is one of the most powerful men in the country making a threat against Supreme Court Justices. It doesn't matter whether you are a fourth grader on the playground or a U.S. Senator--our lesson should be that violence is never the answer and that words matter. The simple end of this would be for Senator Schumer to apologize to the Justices for his attacks, by name: Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice Roberts. Coronavirus Mr. President, on another matter, at the beginning of February, the Air Force announced that my hometown, San Antonio, would be one of the quarantine sites for Americans evacuated from China due to the coronavirus. Lackland Air Force Base is home to an incredibly dedicated and talented group of airmen, and I thank the Air Force for their assistance in housing these American evacuates during their quarantine period. Also, the State of Texas and the city of San Antonio have many hard-working medical professionals, and I have no doubt that these patients who developed symptoms have received top-notch care while at Methodist Hospital and the Texas Center for Infectious Disease. But there was and still is serious concern about the larger public health impact this virus could have. A couple of weeks ago, I brought together the city of San Antonio officials, like the mayor and two members of city council, for meetings with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Defense Department to discuss the ongoing mission concerns and challenges. The mayor and the city council had some legitimate questions and concerns they needed answered. I felt like, at the time, the meeting was a positive step to help encourage coordination between local officials and their Federal partners, but now there is even higher concern after we learned one patient was released only to later find out the test result indicated her virus was still active. At the end of her treatment, in accordance with CDC guidelines, the patient was tested on two occasions with a 24- hour intervening period, which was protocol at the time, and she was ultimately released. Following her release, though, a test that the CDC was unaware was conducted returned results indicating the patient was still a weak positive for the virus. At that point, she was returned to isolation, after spending about 12 hours in the broader San Antonio community, including time at a shopping mall and a hotel. While I am glad this mistake was caught and corrected, it raises serious questions that need to be answered to ensure the continued protection of the American people. Earlier this week, Senator Cruz and I sent a letter to the Director of the Centers for Disease Control, Dr. Robert Redfield, asking him to explain how this incident happened and how it could be avoided in the future. Now that the majority of the individuals who had been evacuated from the Diamond Princess cruise ship, as well as from Wuhan Province-- repatriated Americans--have been released from quarantine, what steps is the Centers for Disease Control taking to ensure they are truly clear of the virus? How are they monitoring those released from quarantine, and what public health risks does the larger population face after their release? After a lot of conversations, we also asked Director Redfield if additional evacuees will be brought to Texas for quarantine and what will happen if San Antonio's health resources reach their maximum capacity. I think it is fair to say that my hometown is carrying more than its fair share of this international outbreak, and its residents deserve answers. As we continue to see headlines about the spread of the virus in Washington State, New York, California, and others, it is clear that time is of the essence. As we seek those answers, I encourage all of my constituents and all Americans to read the best guidance on how to keep themselves and their families safe. While this is a new virus, the same old techniques that your mother taught you while you were growing up apply: Wash your hands, disinfect commonly touched household surfaces, and avoid contact with those who are sick. That is just common sense. Try to avoid touching your face, be sure to cover your cough or sneeze, and stay home if you are not feeling well. Those are the commonsense ways we can protect ourselves. I am incredibly grateful to the healthcare workers around the world who are battling this virus and the dedicated scientists who are working hard to develop a vaccine. In the past few days, I have spoken with President Trump, Secretary Azar, and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee--who did good work on this supplemental appropriations we just voted on--about the need for additional coordination and resources, and I thank each of them for their commitment in keeping Americans and Texans safe. In this supplemental appropriations bill that we just voted on, I requested funding for State and local communities--including San Antonio--which have been at the forefront of this battle, and today we delivered a big win for them. The supplemental funding bill we just passed will make $950 million available for reimbursement for the costs Texas and other States across the country have incurred while monitoring and treating individuals exposed to the coronavirus. I want to thank Senator Shelby and the ranking member, Senator Leahy, for their work on this, and I am glad this much needed relief is now on the way. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 8 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, February 25, 2020, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 25, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 25, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 25, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 25, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Veterans' Affairs The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 25, 2020, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 25, 2020, at 2 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing. Subcommittee on East Asia, The Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Policy The Committee on Foreign Relations of the Subcommittee on East Asia, The Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Policy is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 25, 2020, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this week, the Senate will vote on two bills that will protect our most vulnerable citizens--literally, our babies. The first bill we will vote on is the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which was introduced by our colleague from Nebraska, Senator Sasse. This legislation is simple and straightforward. It requires physicians and healthcare providers to treat babies who survive an abortion with the same lifesaving care that other infants born at the same stage receive. While you might be forgiven for wondering, why would we need such a bill; surely, that standard must already exist in our law--unfortunately, no. There are no Federal laws requiring healthcare providers to care for abortion survivors, just as they would for any other infant in their care. One of the most notorious reasons why we need this law sits in the Governor's mansion in Virginia. About this time last year, our country was shocked and outraged by comments made by Gov. Ralph Northam--a pediatrician, believe it or not--about what should happen when a baby is delivered and survives an abortion. He said: The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. Rather than immediately doing everything possible to save the baby, to provide the same sort of care he would to any infant, he wants to sit around and decide whether the baby will live or die. That is not healthcare; that is infanticide. Voting for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is how each Member of this Chamber can go on record to say they are against killing innocent babies. While some are desperately trying to paint this as an anti-abortion bill, which would infringe on women's reproductive rights, those claims could not be further from the truth. There is nothing in this bill about limiting access to abortion, no mention of first, second, or third trimester abortions, nothing about overturning Roe v. Wade. There is one goal with this legislation and one goal only: to give every baby a fighting chance. In a rational world, we wouldn't be having this discussion but would, rather, unanimously be condemning this practice for the evil that it is. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the bill and, once again, vote to stop the practice of infanticide and protect babies who survive abortions alive. We will be voting on a second bill, which will provide protections for unborn children that are practiced in almost all of the civilized world. This is the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that would make it a crime for doctors to perform abortions on unborn babies at or beyond 20 weeks. There is significant medical research that shows that unborn children at this stage experience pain. At 5 months into a pregnancy, these babies are beyond halfway to delivery. One of President's Trump's guests at the State of the Union a few weeks ago was 2-year-old Ellie Schneider--one of the youngest babies to survive in the United States. Ellie was born at 21 weeks and 6 days-- just 13 days beyond the point in time we are discussing. She weighed less than a pound at birth and is living proof of the medical achievements and advancements that have improved the chance of survival for extremely premature babies. Ellie and her mother Robin are an example of the impact this legislation would have on the lives of many Americans families. Unfortunately, just as our Democratic colleagues have tried to deceive the American people about the purpose of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, they are trying to mislead everyone about what this bill would do as well. First, this bill would apply only to elective abortions, not those involving rape or incest or where the life of the mother could be in danger. It in no way places the mother in legal jeopardy for seeking an abortion. It clearly and solely places responsibility on healthcare providers. Passing this legislation wouldn't make the United States an extreme outlier when it comes to abortion practices. In fact, it would put us in line with international norms. Currently, only seven countries in the world allow elective abortions after 20 weeks. One, of course, is the United States. The other countries on the list should make all of us second-guess allowing abortions beyond 20 weeks--China, Vietnam, North Korea. Countries with a history of human rights violations are hardly the model we should aspire to. It is time to give every baby a chance to live and stop doctors from performing abortions on infants who feel pain. I am proud to be a cosponsor of both of these bills and stand with my colleagues in the fight for human life. Our friend from Montana, Senator Daines, established the first-ever Senate Pro-Life Caucus to fight for the lives of our most vulnerable citizens. A couple of weeks ago, he said: ``These back-to-back votes will present an opportunity for Senate Democrats and all of us to show the American people whether there are any limits at all to radical abortion extremism.'' We will soon learn the answer. I appreciate our colleagues--Senator Sasse, Senator Graham, and Senator Daines--for their leadership on this legislation and for consistently fighting for the most vulnerable among us. I will be a proud ``yes'' vote on both of these bills--yes to protecting newborn babies, yes to equal medical care for all infants, and yes to a fighting chance for all babies.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, earlier this week the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to discuss the level of care babies who are born alive should receive. You heard me correctly. We had a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss the level of medical care a baby that is born alive should receive. As heartbreaking as it is to even ask that question--as if there were more than one option--this is a real debate and something that needs to be paid attention to. There are actually some folks who think it is appropriate for doctors to provide something less than the highest standard of care to babies who survive abortions, and there are those who believe babies who survive abortions should receive the same level of medical assistance as any other baby. That is certainly where I stand. I believe that all life is precious and that every baby deserves a fighting chance. I can't imagine that there is a divergence of view on this topic. Of course, public opinion polling, for what that is worth, shows that the vast majority of Americans agree. Last year, a poll found that more than three-quarters of Americans support providing medical support for babies who survive abortions. It is hard for me to believe that there would be 25 percent on the other side of that, but, suffice it to say, the vast majority of people agree with the proposition that the same medical standard of care should apply. Unfortunately, there are people who make up that 25 percent in government who are in high-ranking positions and who wield a great deal of influence on this question. Take, for example, Virginia's Governor Ralph Northam. About this time last year, he made comments which were deeply disturbing about how to care--or rather, not care--for certain newborn babies. He was caught during an interview. I would like to think he misspoke, but he certainly didn't claim that. This was actually his view. He said that after the baby was delivered, it would be kept comfortable. The baby ``would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.'' What would be the subject of that discussion, whether the baby would live or die? Presumably so. Instead of providing prompt care to save the baby, Governor Northam--who is, by the way, a pediatrician, of all things--believes that you should sit down and decide whether to let the child live or die. That is not healthcare. That is infanticide. In response to Governor Northam's comments--which, apparently, he spoke not just for himself but for a significant segment, maybe the 25 percent in that poll I mentioned earlier--our colleague from Nebraska, Senator Sasse, introduced a bill called the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. This legislation is very straightforward. It would require doctors who treat babies who survive an abortion with the same lifesaving care that other infants receive. It sounds like common sense, right? Well, common sense apparently is not all that common in some quarters. You might think that surely there are already protections that exist for that newborn baby. That has to be the law already, right? Sadly not. There are no Federal laws requiring healthcare providers to care for these babies just as they would any other infant in their care. Sadly, many of our Democratic colleagues in the Senate are just fine with that. When the Senate voted on this legislation last year, 44 Democrats voted against it--against it. But for those of us who are aligned more with the 75 percent of Americans who believe all babies deserve that care, we are not fine with that. This legislation would build on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, which actually passed the Senate unanimously at the time. That bill clarified that any infant born alive at any stage of development is a person--again, a statement of the obvious--regardless of the manner in which they were born. Now it is time to clarify that each person will receive appropriate medical care, no matter what their circumstances and how they happened to be delivered and born. One of our witnesses in today's and Tuesday's hearings was Dr. Robin Pierucci, a neonatologist at Bronson Methodist Hospital. Dr. Pierucci discussed the medical standard of care for babies born alive and concluded that ``we are always obligated to care, whether or not we have the ability to heal.'' I agree with her. There should only be one side to this question--the side that advocates for equal medical care for newborns, the side that believes that all infants deserve a fighting chance, the side that believes that life is precious and must be protected. When I attended this hearing, it reminded me of an article that was written back in 2004 by one of my favorite writers, Peggy Noonan. She was talking about a Presidential candidate, General Wesley Clark, running that year for the Democratic nomination for President. She quotes an interview that General Clark had with the publisher of the Manchester Union-Leader, Joseph McQuaid. Here is how the conversation went. General Clark says: I don't think you should get the law involved in abortion. McQuaid said: At all? Clark said: Nope. McQuaid said: Late-term abortion? No limits? Clark said: Nope. McQuaid said: Anything up to delivery? Clark said: Nope, nope. McQuaid: Anything up to the head coming out of the womb? Clark said: I say it is up to the woman and her doctor, her conscience. You don't put the law in there. Back when the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it made clear that at some point, once the fetus is viable, you are dealing with more than just the interest of the mother. I know the whole debate over abortion is divisive in this country, but at some point you have to realize you are not just talking about one person but two people, and each of those individuals has rights, and the State certainly has an interest in protecting a vulnerable child. In my State of Texas--and I dare say in Florida and in every other State in the country--we have child protection laws in place which say if you witness child abuse or neglect, you have a legal duty to report it. Again, the law says, if you see a child that is being abused or neglected, you have a duty to report it, and if you don't do it, you are guilty of a crime. How in the world we could reconcile these ideas that it is somehow OK to deliver a child, even though it is a botched abortion, and not have a legal, much less a moral, duty to care for that child is irreconcilable. I think it is really important for the Senate to stand on the side of life. This is not an abortion issue. This is a matter of equal protection under the law and whether we are going to fulfill our duty to protect the most vulnerable among us--the children, who might otherwise be abused or, certainly, neglected. I am proud to cosponsor this legislation and to stand up firmly on the side of our most vulnerable citizens. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, debates between the executive branch and Congress over the power to conduct war is not a new topic, but in many ways, I think this debate has been blown out of proportion. A lot of this has to do with the decision made by President Trump, with the advice of his advisers, to eliminate one of the worst terrorists in the Middle East, Qasem Soleimani, who was plotting to burn down the American Embassy in Iraq and also threatened the lives of American troops--to take him off the battlefield. This is clearly within the President's authority under the Constitution. It really isn't a matter of whether Congress needed to give him the authority to do that. I think we all agree that the President, as Commander in Chief, has to have his constitutional authority to defend American lives and American interests when Congress doesn't have the time--and we don't have the time--or is, frankly, not built for speed when it comes to addressing threats to national security like that. We do have a shared responsibility, but primarily the responsibility of the Congress can be exercised through our appropriations authority. We could literally cut off the funds that the executive branch would use to conduct operations if Congress sees fit. If this resolution succeeds, it will tie the Commander in Chief's hands while the threat posed by Iran and terrorist organizations, like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, and the Quds Force that was headed by General Soleimani, remains high. Actually, I think the President should be congratulated. Former general David Petraeus said that what the President did by taking Soleimani off the battlefield reestablished some level of deterrence. In other words, if you are going to be stepping into the shoes of the head of the Quds Force and the IRGC to lead terrorist attacks against the United States and our allies, you are going to have to think twice before you do that because you might end up in the same condition that General Soleimani did. Reestablishing deterrence is very, very important because when our adversaries sense weakness, it is a provocation and an invitation to attack America and our allies and our interests. Again, I know some of our friends were upset that General Soleimani was taken out by a drone strike, but he was one of the most consequential military leaders in the Middle East and was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American servicemembers, training Shia militias and others in the war in Iraq, providing them with improvised explosive devices. Actually, they are designed so they literally will melt through armor like a hot knife through butter. That all came from Iran and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of American servicemembers. When a successful mission carried out by U.S. forces finally brought an end to Soleimani's reign of terror, our colleagues couldn't even acknowledge the President's decisive action and that it undoubtedly saved lives. My mind immediately went back to, how did Republicans and Democrats act when President Obama directed the raid that took out Osama bin Laden? We didn't draw partisan lines. We didn't say: Well, he didn't have the authority to do that, so we are going to come back to Congress and tie his hands for the fight in the War on Terror. We didn't do that. The reaction is like night and day between the operation directed at taking out Osama bin Laden and the operation that took out General Soleimani, the head of a terrorist organization from a country that is a leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world. As I said, I strongly disagree with the claim that President Trump's actions were outside his authority or that he should have come to Congress and sought congressional approval before acting. You may remember what Congress was doing while the President was having to deal with this. The House was voting on Articles of Impeachment, and then the Senate had to conduct a trial of these Impeachment Articles. Obviously, it failed, but it took up time, where we literally could not have dealt with this emergency action and an opportunity to take a world-class terrorist off the battlefield. This was clearly not only within the President's constitutional authority, but it was also his duty to prevent and stop threats against the United States, including those posed by the Iranian regime and their allies and the Shia militias. One of the other individuals who died in the attack directed at Soleimani was leader of the Shia militias in Iraq, had been plotting the destruction of the U.S. Embassy there and perhaps even a hostage situation, like we saw in 1979, but also plotting attacks against American servicemembers there assisting the Iraqi people in trying to rebuild their government and provide them a means to govern themselves safely and to eliminate the terrorist threat. Passing this resolution would limit the President's authority to defend American servicemembers against imminent attacks and would place our troops further in harm's way. So I will vote against the resolution, and I would implore our colleagues to do the same. I know that, in an era of Trump derangement syndrome, anything that the President is for some people are reflexively against, and I think this falls in that category. Again, I don't question the motives of Members of Congress in wanting to make sure that the shared powers that Congress and the President have under the Constitution to wage war--I don't question their motives in trying to find the appropriate balance, but here I think we stepped across the line, literally, to try to tie the President's hands as a punishment for conducting a fully authorized operation against one of the world's worst terrorists, something we should applaud rather than condemn. Violence Against Women Act Madam President, on another matter, over the last year we have witnessed unprecedented foot-dragging, political gamesmanship, and downright obstruction by our Democratic colleagues in Congress on a number of bills. They have derailed the appropriations process. They have knuckle-dragged during important trade negotiations. They have held up things that used to have common support, nonpartisan support-- things like the Debbie Smith Act. Of course, the Debbie Smith Act was designed to fund the testing of untested rape kits. This had been an area of broad bipartisan consensus that should be nonpartisan, but we saw the House of Representatives dragging their feet in order to gain leverage against the Senate for months, and they allowed the Debbie Smith Act to expire, along with potentially threatening the funding used to eliminate the rape kit backlog. The latest tactics have now been deployed, if you thought that was about as low as things could get. The latest tactic is to weaponize the Violence Against Women Act. This is more than a 25-year program, and it is at the forefront of our commitment to support victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Until recently, it always had been high above the political fray. The first time this program came up for reauthorization, there were disagreements over some aspects of the bill, but we were able to work together and reach a compromise. That is the only way anything gets done around here--bipartisan compromise. But when it came time to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act last year, some in the House and some in the Senate saw an opportunity to score political points-- not solve a problem, not reauthorize a program we all agree is important and necessary. They saw it as a political weapon. They allowed VAWA, or the Violence Against Women Act, to get caught in the crosshairs of a funding debate and insisted that we should not fund that vital program because it was overdue for updates. Well, let me be clear. Both sides agree there are things we could do to improve the Violence Against Women Act, and that is what our colleague from Iowa, Senator Ernst, has been leading on our side. But this ``my way or the highway'' legislative strategy isn't the approach that is designed to get anything done, and vital funding for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault should never, ever be used as leverage to gain political advantage. Though our colleagues allowed the authorization of the Violence Against Women Act to expire, thankfully, saner heads prevailed. It did receive record funding levels last year, but that doesn't mean we are in the clear. We need to figure out a long-term solution that will reauthorize this important program. As the Presiding Officer knows--as we all know--there has to be an authorization bill and then funding to meet the terms of that authorization. We need both. Last fall, we thought we were making good progress. As I said, Senator Ernst spent months working with the bipartisan group of Senators, including Senator Feinstein, the senior Senator from California, trying to work on a compromise. Before these negotiations could be completed, Democrats got up and left the negotiating table and headed straight for the TV cameras and held a press conference condemning Republicans for not falling into line on their partisan bill. Well, what was the big news at the press conference? Not that a deal had been reached or that negotiations were making progress. The Democratic leadership marched up to the microphone and said they would be introducing a near replica of the House's partisan bill, which doesn't have the support needed to pass it in the Senate. During the press conference, one of our colleagues, the Senator from Hawaii, even conceded five times that the bill was going nowhere, proving that our Democratic colleagues had no intention of introducing a bill that could become law. If this sounds familiar, if you have seen this movie before, well, that is because we went through the same exercise back in 2012 and 2013. Our Democratic colleagues used this issue to attack Republicans up for reelection for not supporting their partisan bill at that time, after they chose not to negotiate in good faith for a bipartisan bill. So I think that is what is happening again. They are not interested in reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. If they were actually interested in solving a problem, we would solve the problem and get it passed, but they would rather have the issue that they can use in their campaigns for November and show contempt, frankly, for the people who would benefit from passing the Violence Against Women Act and turn this into purely a partisan issue. I believe that our colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, wants to get a bipartisan bill done. I have worked with her a number of times on a number of pieces of legislation. She is a good partner to work with on the other side of the aisle. I know her commitment to continue negotiating with Senator Ernst is genuine, but, frankly, I don't think she is pulling the strings on the Democratic side. I think our colleague, the Democratic leader, is the one preventing negotiations here, because his main goal, as we have seen through the impeachment circus and elsewhere, is to become the next majority leader, and he thinks this is the best weapon the Democrats can use to beat Republicans running for the Senate in 2020. How shameful is that? How degrading and disrespectful is that to the people who would benefit from the passage of a consensus, bipartisan Violence Against Women Act? I can only hope that cooler heads will prevail and that our colleagues across the aisle--but, principally, the Democratic leader-- will just quit weaponizing this dispute over VAWA and return to the negotiating table. Until then, we will keep working on a bill that could win the support of folks on both sides. Senator Ernst produced such a bill, an alternative to the bill produced by the Senate Democrats, and I am proud to cosponsor that legislation. Overall, this bill sends more funding and resources to the victims of sexual assault and sexual abuse than does the Democrat bill, and it authorizes the program for twice as long. That is critical to protecting the Violence Against Women Act from the kind of partisan games that we are seeing played out today, and it gives the Department of Justice the stability it needs to plan for the future, because it is the Department of Justice that hands out the grants to the various organizations that provide aid and comfort to victims of sexual assault. While this increased funding would be a welcomed victory for the program, it is only part of what sets this bill apart. It goes further than other reauthorizations by addressing a number of horrific crimes that are being committed against women and girls in our country. Sex trafficking, for example, is not always recognized as a form of sexual assault, and this bill would change that. It also enhances the maximum criminal penalties for sexual abuse of minors and other vulnerable groups. It takes aim at heinous crimes like mutilation and addresses crimes in rural areas and on Tribal lands. This bill also takes aim at relatively new threats, like when abusive images and videos are posted online. It will empower victims of this kind of abuse to remove the content from the internet by using copyright takedown authority. Unlike the Democratic bill, this legislation includes provisions of a number of bipartisan bills that have been introduced by our colleagues in the Senate. One example is a bill I introduced with Senator Feinstein called the HEALS Act, which would remove some of the hurdles that exist between victims of domestic violence and safe housing. One of the toughest things for a victim of sexual violence and sexual assault is finding a safe place to live. This provision that Senator Feinstein and I have included in Senator Ernst's version of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization includes greater flexibility for transitional housing so survivors can get back on their feet without fear of losing the roof over their head or exposing themselves to their attacker. The Violence Against Women Act is a lifeline for countless survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, and we need to come together to reauthorize this critical program. The bill introduced by Senator Ernst includes a range of bipartisan proposals to strengthen the Violence Against Women Act without the poison pills being offered by the Democrats' version. I can only hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will return to the negotiating table and work with us to finally reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. This is simply too important to use as a partisan bludgeon during the runup to the 2020 election. We need to address the problem. We need to solve the problem applying the 80-20 rule. If you can agree to 80 percent of it, let's get it done, and we can save the 20 percent we don't agree on for another day and another fight, and not hold victims of sexual violence at risk, as the status quo currently does. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the impeachment process that has consumed our country over the last several months is finally at an end. Every Member of this Chamber has spent dozens of hours, if not more, studying the precedents, listening to the House managers and the President's legal team as they presented their arguments, including the testimony of 13 witnesses whose sworn testimony was presented during the Senate trial. In the end, the majority of the Senators agreed that President Trump should be acquitted of the charges brought by the House. No matter how each Senator voted or felt about the end result, I can hope that we would all agree on one thing, and that is, it is time to move forward. Impeachment has paralyzed the work of Congress for far too long, and we can't continue to allow the divisions and partisan games that are associated with it to prevent us from doing the jobs we were sent here to do. We are 9 months away from the next election. I think it is somewhere around 267 days, if I am not mistaken. That is when the American people will choose their next President and vote on the direction of the country. But until then, our constituents expect us to use the remainder of the time we have here to find consensus where and when we can and to make progress on issues that they care most about. For my constituents in Texas, the No. 1 item on their list is prescription drug pricing. I continue to hear from my constituents in Texas who feel burdened, confused, and down-right frustrated by rising costs at the pharmacy. One of the reasons why I think that is probably true is that under the Affordable Care Act deductibles have risen and copays have ballooned, such that consumers are now paying more out of pocket for their prescription drugs than ever before, because from all of the negotiated deals between the pharmaceutical manufacturers and the prescription pharmacy benefit managers, none of that savings directly goes into the pocket of the consumer. So with increased deductibles and with expanded copays, my constituents, and, I dare say, all of our constituents are feeling more of that coming out of their pocket. Medications that people have been taking for years just keep getting more and more expensive with no explanation behind the increase. To me, the No. 1 example of that is insulin. I support the role of our patent system to protect research and development of lifesaving and innovative drugs, that people get a period of exclusivity--the companies that bring them into the market--a period of exclusivity so they can recoup their sunk costs and perhaps even make a profit, but there is just simply no explanation for a drug like insulin, that has been on the market for so long, for people to see $1,200 and higher copays, as we heard in the Senate Finance Committee hearing. A mother talked about her young son who was leaving the nest, so to speak, but he was unable to meet the $1,200 copay. He was deferring decisions in his life like buying a house and perhaps even getting married because of the burden of that copay. We must do better, particularly on drugs that have been on the market for a long, long time, like insulin, that are so important for treating conditions like diabetes. But perhaps the single most--well, it is really the most common concern I hear about is a drug called HUMIRA, and that is perhaps because it is the most widely prescribed drug in the world. This drug is a miracle drug, to be sure. It treats arthritis and a number of other immunodeficiency conditions, and it has been available for 15 years. Now, you typically think of an expensive drug as being one, as I said, freshly on the market, which has just completed costly research and development, but a drug that has been around 15 years, can it be still protected by those patents, even though it was supposed to expire years earlier? Well, apparently, it can. Smart lawyers with pharmaceutical manufacturers have figured a way to impose what is known as patent thickets. In other words, they can request and get issued so many different patents that they literally can prolong the period in which a drug manufacturer can claim exclusive right to the sales of that drug. AbbVie, the company that makes HUMIRA, has figured this out. They figured out how to game the patent system so that no competition ever comes to market, and they remain the sole provider of this widely used drug. Their playbook involves an intricate maze of overlapping patents, which make it nearly impossible for a competitor to come to market. Here is the best evidence of that. Today there are five companies that compete with HUMIRA in Europe, but all are blocked from their competing drugs being sold here in America until 2023. That is as a result of this patent thicketing gamesmanship. The smart lawyers at AbbVie have effectively found loopholes that allow them to create and maintain a monopoly. Unfortunately, this isn't the only example of anticompetitive behavior in the pharmaceutical industry. A number of my constituents have also told me about their experience with a drug called Namenda, which is used by patients with Alzheimer's, a devastating disease. Like other new drugs, it began with an exclusivity period, where they were the sole provider, but when that period was coming to a close, the drugmaker switched from a twice-daily to a once-daily dose. Believe it or not, that triggers a new patent application. That move itself prevented pharmacists from being able to switch patients to a lower cost generic, even though it is just as effective, so the company could continue to reap enormous profits basically by just changing from twice-a-day to once-a-day application. The enemy here is not our patent system. It is the abuse of the patent system by some pharmaceutical companies--again, not all pharmaceutical companies--but some in ways that directly harm the people we represent, the American people. Earlier this year, I introduced a bill with my friend, the Democratic Senator from Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, to take aim at some of these corrupt practices. Our bill strikes the delicate balance between protecting innovation while increasing competition, and when it passes, it will be a win for every American who has felt the pain of sticker shock at the pharmacy. We know it takes a lot more than good policy to get a bill turned into law around here. It takes bipartisanship. It takes broad consensus support to get the green light from the appropriate committees and to pass them through both Houses of the Senate. Well, you would think a bill like this that is bipartisan, has broad support, passed unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee, and reduces Federal spending would be a piece of cake to pass, but they haven't been in the Senate during this period of our divisiveness. The senior Senator from New York, the Democratic leader, has refused to let this bill pass without a Broadway-scale production of other unrelated legislation. Back in November, I came to the floor to ask that this bill be passed by unanimous consent--again, since it had passed unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee, and we had hotlined the bill to see if there were any other objections in the Senate and found none. Well, in the month that followed, after the senior Senator from New York objected to passing that bill, I didn't hear a single word from the Senator who had concerns about it, but when I came to the floor to ask that the bill be passed again, the senior Senator from New York, the Democratic leader, blocked it again. He doesn't think it is bad policy. In fact, he admitted it is a good bill. He is not objecting to it because it is somehow a partisan bill that hasn't gone through the regular order or would increase the national debt. As I said, none of these things are true of this legislation. The only reason the senior Senator from New York, the Democratic leader, objected to this bill is because he is engaging in the kind of politics and gamesmanship that really gives Washington, DC, a bad name. It is true that my name, like a third of the Senators' names, will be on the ballot in November, and Senator Schumer, apparently, is willing to punish his constituents in New York State by not allowing this bill to pass because he wants to make sure that nobody whose name is on the ballot, who happens to be a Republican, can claim any sort of advantage by getting a win, legislatively. Well, unfortunately, while he is playing those sort of politics and games, his own constituents are being harmed, and the American people are being deprived of the benefits of this bipartisan legislation. We saw this mentality during the President's impeachment trial too. We saw how the Democratic leader staged vote after vote--not because he felt like he had a shot at getting a conviction of President Trump and a removal but strictly to make Senators whose names were going to be on the ballot in 2020 look bad. He wanted to get the best 30-second TV spot he could possibly get against all Republican Senators running in 2020. He knew he was going to lose on the main impeachment vote, so he focused on the one thing that has eluded him for many years, and that is, his aspiration to become the next majority leader. Now, in his bid to become the next majority leader, our colleague from New York is blocking a bill that would bring down drug prices not only in the State of Texas but in New York as well and every other State around the country. I wonder what the Senator's constituents in New York are telling him about blocking bipartisan legislation that would actually benefit them. This is at the same time that they are trying to figure out how do they pay the higher copay or deductible for their prescriptions at the pharmacy. We are not even a month and a half into the new year, and drug prices are already on the rise, with an average increase of 6 percent. HUMIRA, which I mentioned earlier, has already gone up 7.4 percent. So it is clear to me that this problem is not going to go away, and the time to act is now. I would encourage the Democratic leader to stop blocking the bill that his conference Member Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut and I have introduced, so we can address these rising costs and provide some much needed relief for our constituents. My constituents have asked me: What does Congress intend to do between now and the election? I usually mention: Well, we can deal with the prescription drugs, and we can help bring down the out-of-pocket costs. Hopefully, we can pass a highway infrastructure bill that we are working on, one that passed unanimously out of the Environment and Public Works Committee under the leadership of Senators Barrasso and Carper, but the third thing I think we ought to be able to do--and really it is a shame it has taken this long to act--is we need to take actions to confront the rising healthcare risks associated with e- cigarettes.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following my oral remarks that my more extensive, written remarks that I have prepared be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, over the last months, our country has been consumed by a single word, one that we don't use often in our ordinary parlance. That word, of course, is ``impeachment.'' It has filled our news channels, our Twitter feeds, and dinner conversations. It has led to a wide-ranging debate on everything from the constitutional doctrines of the separation of powers to the due process of law--two concepts which are the most fundamental building blocks of who we are as a nation. It has even prompted those who typically have no interest in politics to tune into C-SPAN or into their favorite cable news channels. The impeachment of a President of the United States is simply the gravest undertaking we can pursue in this country. It is the nuclear option in our Constitution--the choice of last resort--when a President has committed a crime so serious that Congress must act rather than leave the choice to the voters in the election. The Framers of the Constitution granted this awesome power to the U.S. Congress and placed their confidence in the Senate to use only when absolutely necessary, when there is no other choice. This is a rare, historic moment for the Members of this Chamber. This has been faced by the Senate only on two previous occasions during our Constitution's 232-year history--only two times previously. We should be extraordinarily vigilant in ensuring that the impeachment power does not become a regular feature of our differences and, in the process, cheapen the vote of the American people. Soon, Members of the Senate will determine whether, for the first time in our history, a President will be removed from office, and then we will decide whether he will be barred from the ballot in 2020. The question all Senators have to answer is, Did the President commit, in the words of the Constitution, a high crime and misdemeanor that warrants his removal from office or should he be acquitted of the charges made by the House? I did my best to listen intently to both sides as they presented their cases during the trial, and I am confident in saying that President Trump should be acquitted and not removed from office. First, the Constitution gives the Congress the power to impeach and remove a President from office only for treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors, but the two Articles of Impeachment passed by the House of Representatives fail to meet that standard. The first charge, as we know, is abuse of power. House Democrats alleged that the President withheld military aid from Ukraine in exchange for investigations of Joe and Hunter Biden. But they failed to bring forward compelling and unassailable evidence of any crime--again, the Constitution talks about treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors; clearly, a criminal standard--and thus failed to meet their burden of proof. Certainly, the House managers did not meet the high burden required to remove the President from office, effectively nullifying the will of tens of millions of Americans just months before the next election. What is more, the House's vague charge in the first article is equivalent to acts considered and rejected by the Framers of our Constitution. That brings us to the second article we are considering--obstruction of Congress. During the House inquiry, Democrats were upset because some of the President's closest advisers--and their most sought-after witnesses--did not testify. To be clear, some of the executive branch witnesses were among the 13 witnesses whose testimony we did hear during the Senate trial. But for those witnesses for whom it was clear the administration would claim a privilege, almost certainly leading to a long court battle, the House declined to issue the subpoenas and certainly did not seek judicial enforcement. Rather than addressing the privilege claims in court, as happened in the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, the Democratic managers moved to impeach President Trump for obstruction of Congress for protecting the Presidency itself from a partisan abuse of power by the House. Removing the President from office for asserting long-recognized and constitutionally grounded privileges that have been invoked by both Republican and Democratic Presidents would set a very dangerous precedent and would do violence to the Constitution's separation of powers design. In effect, it would make the Presidency itself subservient to Congress. The father of our Constitution, James Madison, warned against allowing the impeachment power to create a Presidential tenure at the pleasure of the Senate. Even more concerning, at every turn throughout this process, the House Democrats violated President Trump's right to due process of law. All American law is built on a constitutional foundation securing basic rights and rules of fairness for a citizen accused of wrongdoing. It is undisputed that the House excluded the President's legal team from both the closed-door testimony and almost the entirety of the House's 78-day inquiry. They channeled personal, policy, and political grievances and attempted to use the most solemn responsibility of Congress to bring down a political rival in a partisan process. It is no secret that Democrats' crusade to remove the President began more than 3 years ago on the very day he was inaugurated. On January 20, 2017, the Washington Post ran a story with the headline ``The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.'' At first, Speaker Pelosi wisely resisted. Less than a year ago, she said, ``Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there is something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path because it divides the country.'' And she was right. But when she couldn't hold back the stampede of her caucus, she did a 180-degree about-face. She encouraged House Democrats to rush through an impeachment inquiry before an arbitrary Christmas deadline. In the end, the articles passed with support from only a single party--not bipartisan. The bipartisanship the Speaker claimed was necessary was actually opposed to the impeachment of the President; that is, Democrats and Republicans voted in opposition to the Articles of Impeachment. Only Democrats voted for the Articles of Impeachment in the House. Once the articles finally made it to the Senate after a confusing, 28-day delay, Speaker Pelosi tried to have Senator Schumer--the Democratic leader here--use Speaker Pelosi's playbook, and he staged a number of political votes every Member of the Senate knew would fail, just so he could secure some perceived political advantage against Republican Senators in the 2020 election. What should be a solemn, constitutional undertaking became partisan guerilla warfare to take down President Trump and make Senator Schumer the next majority leader of the U.S. Senate. All of this was done on the eve of an election and just days shy of the first primary in Iowa. Well, to say the timing was a coincidence would be laughable. This partisan impeachment process could not only remove the President from office, it would also potentially prevent his name from appearing on the ballot in November. We are only 9 months away from an election--9 months away from the American people voting on the direction of our country--but our Democratic colleagues don't trust the American people, so they have taken matters into their own hands. This politically motivated impeachment sets a dangerous precedent. This is a very important point. This is not just about President Trump; this is about the Office of the Presidency and what precedent a conviction and removal would set for our Constitution and for our future. If successful, this would give a green light to future Congresses to weaponize impeachment to defeat a political opponent for any action--even a failure to kowtow to Congress's wishes. Impeachment is a profoundly serious matter that must be handled as such. It cannot become the Hail Mary pass of a party to remove a President, effectively nullifying an election and interfering in the next. I believe--I think we should all believe--that the results of the next election should be decided by the American people, not by Congress. The decision to remove a President from office requires undeniable evidence of a high crime. That is the language chosen by the Framers of our Constitution. But despite our colleagues' best attempts, the facts they presented simply don't add up to that standard. House managers failed to meet their heavy burden of proof that President Trump, beyond a reasonable doubt, committed a crime, let alone a high crime; therefore, I will not vote to convict the President. I hope our Democratic colleagues will finally accept the result of this trial--just as they have not accepted the result of the 2016 election--and I hope they won't take the advice of Congresswoman Waters, Maxine Waters in the House, and open a second impeachment inquiry. It is time for our country to come together to heal the wounds that divide us and to get the people's work done. There is no doubt, as Speaker Pelosi observed in March of 2019, that impeachment is a source of division in our country, and it is also a period of great sadness. If this partisan impeachment were to succeed, my greatest fear is it would become a routine process for every President who serves with a House majority of the opposite party, and we would find ourselves in a recurring impeachment nightmare every time we elect a new President. Our country is deeply divided and damaged by this partisan impeachment process. It is time for us to bring it to a close and to let the wounds from this unnecessary and misguided episode heal.

Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. 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 Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 16, 2020, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: James E. McPherson, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of the Army, and Charles Williams, of Missouri, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Navy, both of the Department of Defense. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 16, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Andrew Lynn Brasher, of Alabama, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit, John Charles Hinderaker, and Scott H. Rash, both to be a United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, Joshua M. Kindred, to be United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, Matthew Thomas Schelp, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, Stanley Blumenfeld, and Mark C. Scarsi, each to be a United States District Judge for the Central District of California, Stephen A. Vaden, of Tennessee, to be a Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, and Grace Karaffa Obermann, and Stephen Sidney Schwartz, both of Virginia, both to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims.