John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me begin by commending our friend from Oklahoma for his patience. It takes a lot of patience to get things done around here. It also takes a lot of perseverance. Sometimes I think that if you can't convince people, maybe you can just wear down their resistance over time. But this is an idea whose time has come, and I congratulate our friend from Oklahoma and Senator Hassan and would love to join them in supporting their effort. Thank you.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, after months of headlines about the dangers of vaping and a litany of mysterious medical conditions, we hit a pretty concerning milestone last week--vaping-related lung injuries have now been reported in all 50 States. Alaska became State No. 50 with the identification of a teen suffering from these illnesses. I said a teen. The teen reported regularly vaping both nicotine and THC products, and while I am glad to hear the patient is recovering, it highlights the need for immediate action to this public health emergency. Nationwide, nearly 28 percent of high school students and 1 in 10 middle school students are using e-cigarettes. That is just to the best of our knowledge. Folks at home are struggling to respond to these growing numbers, and parents and teachers and others are trying to figure out how to get their arms around this problem. Last year, 19 percent of Texas high school students had used an e- cigarette in the last 30 days, and all of these recent cases lead me to believe that this number has gone up and gone up significantly. It is, I believe, a growing epidemic, but folks in North Texas are bearing the brunt of it. More than half of all the vaping-related injuries at home occurred in North Texas. It is also home to the first vaping-related death in the State. Last Friday, I visited the University of North Texas Health Science Center in Fort Worth to learn more about the dangers of e-cigarettes and the community-led efforts to curb their use. Let me be clear. When we are talking about adults making choices on what to put in their body, I will leave those choices to the individual adult, but if we are talking about children exposing themselves to a chemical that is addictive, which may lead to a life--even if they avoid some of the immediate public health consequences, it may lead to a lifetime of addiction and worse. We heard from a pulmonary specialist that a lot of kids she talks to don't understand the risk of e-cigarettes. They think that because these devices aren't subject to the same regulations and restrictions as traditional cigarettes, they are somehow different and safer. We got to hear from a teen who certainly had that mindset. Sixteen- year-old high school junior Anna Carey is one of the many students in her high school using e-cigarettes, and she admits to becoming rather quickly addicted to the nicotine. She said she began to display symptoms like those we have seen across the country. She was extremely lethargic and would experience random and severe pains in her chest. Two initial x rays came back clear. So her doctors released her, but her symptoms continued. Eventually, she was admitted to the Cook Children's Hospital and diagnosed with chemical-induced pneumonia in both lungs. That, Anna told us, was her wake-up call. I am glad to report that Anna has fully recovered and is using her story to help educate and alert her fellow teens from going down the same path. Everyone who participated in our discussion in Fort Worth last Friday agreed that there is no single action or initiative that can put this outbreak to rest. We need to work together, not only the Federal Government but State and local governments, parents, teachers, and communities, to combat this crisis from every angle. During our conversations we talked about the need for action by the Food and Drug Administration, something our colleagues on the HELP Committee have been examining. We also talked about the need to do more to educate our kids about the risks of e-cigarette use to stop them from picking up these devices in the first place. One of the easiest ways we can do that is to make it more difficult for children to purchase vaping devices from online retailers, but, unfortunately, our current laws make that difficult to enforce. We are not talking about changing the age restrictions to purchase these devices, but merely the manner in which these devices are purchased in a way that avoids the age restrictions on their consumption. For traditional cigarettes, consumers are able to make purchases online, but there are clear guardrails in place to prevent children from skirting the age restrictions. At the time of the delivery, the buyer has to sign and show an ID proving that they are an adult. That just makes common sense. You have to show an ID when you purchase cigarettes at a gas station or convenience store, and it shouldn't be any different when you purchase these devices online. But e-cigarettes are on a different playing field. As often is the case, developments in the real world can outpace Congress's ability to respond, and this is, perhaps, a prime example of that. Anyone, no matter how old or young, can go online and buy e- cigarettes and have them delivered to their front door--no questions asked, no age verification, no ID, no nothing--and that is wrong. Kids can be resourceful, you better believe, in taking advantage of this loophole. In fact, a recent survey found that a third of underage e-cigarette users bought them online. There is no reason why e-cigarettes should be subject to lesser restrictions than traditional cigarettes. They are just as addictive and dangerous. After hearing from a number of constituents who share my concerns about teen vaping, I introduced legislation to make it more difficult for our children to get their hands on these devices. The Preventing Online Sales of E-Cigarettes to Children Act would put in place the same safeguards for e-cigarettes as traditional cigarettes purchased online. Just to be clear, we are talking about protecting children. We are not talking about limiting adults' rights to use these devices. This bill would require online retailers to verify the age of a customer, release deliveries only to an adult showing a proper ID, and to comply with all State and local tobacco taxes. These are commonsense reforms, and they have garnered broad bipartisan support. More than a quarter of the Senators in this body are cosponsors of this bill, and it recently passed by voice vote in the House of Representatives. When we are talking about passing consensus legislation that makes just common sense, well, this is as easy as it comes. We need to do everything in our power to turn the tide on this wave of addiction to protect our children from these dangerous substances. I appreciate Dr. Michael Williams and the folks at the UNT Health Science Center for hosting such an important discussion and for their work to educate the public on e-cigarettes and the dangers associated with their use, particularly by minor children. I want to thank my colleagues who have thrown their support behind this legislation. It is a bipartisan bill, as demonstrated by the chief cosponsors on the other side, Senators Feinstein and Van Hollen. I can't imagine why anybody would want to hold such a commonsense bill up, and I hope we will be able to send it to the President before we head home for the holidays. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know the American people, when they see what is happening in Washington, think that we fight all the time and we disagree about everything, but let me just agree with my friend, the democratic leader, on the issue of the nuisance of robocalls. But as important as that is to our quality of life and to protecting vulnerable seniors and others who may be misled by some of these deceptive calls, some of the most basic functions of the Federal Government have not been fulfilled, like appropriating the money that is necessary to support our men and women in uniform. The bipartisan spending caps bill that we agreed to in August has been walked back by our Democratic friends, and we find ourselves with a lot of uncertainty here at the end of the year in terms of what the future may hold in terms of our ability to actually get anything done, things like pass a highway bill. That is one thing that Republicans and Democrats can all agree on, is our disdain for traffic and congestion. That is one thing we can work on together. We could work together to bring down drug prices, particularly the out-of-pocket costs for consumers with high deductibles and high co-pays. We could pass USMCA, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement. All of these enjoy broad bipartisan support, but unfortunately, they are now all held captive by this impeachment mania which has stricken the House of Representatives, and it is scheduled to come over here to the Senate probably around the first of the year, depending on the schedule that Speaker Pelosi keeps in the House. Impeachment So while there are plenty of good ideas out there about things that we can work on together on a bipartisan basis, we all know that the Senate and the Congress has limited bandwidth. We can't do everything we want to do. We need to prioritize. I would hope that our priorities would be the American people's priorities and not the political priorities here of partisans in Washington, DC, but unfortunately, it looks to me like the partisans are winning and the people are losing. We need to keep fighting against that. But that is where we are right now, particularly with Speaker Pelosi's announcement this morning that the House is now going to proceed to draft Articles of Impeachment, something that has only been done four times in our Nation's history. This will be the fourth time. We know what the outcome is likely to be with the 67-vote threshold here in the Senate, and I think all of us in America listened or have been exposed to anyway the various arguments on both sides of the question, but I don't really, frankly, expect anything new to come out of this. A lot of this is rehashed over and over again ad nauseam in order to justify a partisan impeachment process less than 1 year before the next general election. I would think we would be a little bit cautious about 535 Members of Congress working here in the Nation's Capital reversing the decision made by more than 60 million Americans in the last Presidential election. That is a very sobering and serious matter indeed, but, unfortunately, I don't see this issue getting the kind of sober and serious consideration that the Founders contemplated or that the American people deserve. American Energy Mr. President, on another topic, a number of our colleagues here in Washington have undertaken a radical approach when it comes to providing the energy that our country needs. As a matter of fact, if you think about it, it is because of the energy being produced by the oil and gas industry here in America today that the average price of gasoline is now probably roughly $2.50 per gallon. In Austin, TX, where I live, you can drive from the airport to my home, and you can see gas prices at $2.15 a gallon. It is cheap relative to the historical prices. And you think about what that means in terms of consumers, regular, everyday working folks and families. It means they are able to spend money on other things that are important to them in their lives and not spend all of their income on filling up their gas tank. That is a huge, huge gift to the American people and consumers, but rather than focus on the benefits of what our innovative and entrepreneurial industry has done, we know that some of our friends here in Washington want to reorder the world in their own image. They say the goal is to completely eliminate the most affordable and reliable sources of energy. For what? Well, in pursuit of net zero emissions. I will talk more about that in a moment. We remember earlier this year they introduced the Green New Deal-- arguably the most extreme energy and climate proposal this country has ever seen. The Green New Deal is chock-full of utopian ideas but completely devoid of any pragmatic plans to implement any of its pie- in-the-sky proposals. It puts a range of unrealistic environmental and socialist policies under one big green umbrella with an unaffordably high pricetag. The best evidence of how extreme this proposal is, is when it came up for a vote in the Senate. Not a single Senator voted for it--that includes all of the cosponsors of the proposal. That is not exactly a profile in courage, to tell the American people this is the solution to our environmental and energy problems, and then when it comes up for a vote, you run and hide. Nobody voted for it. If this proposal were not so terrifying, it would be a terribly bad joke. While that may be the most extreme proposal we have seen, it is not the only one. We know some of our Democratic colleagues in the House have tried to impose government mandates. That means more regulation, more taxation, more control by Washington, all in an effort to achieve net zero emissions by the year 2050. In some ways, 2050 seems like a long way off, and in other ways it doesn't seem a long way off, but in pursuit of programs that would address a problem in 2050, how about let's take care of the business that is sitting here right before us today first. We seem to have lost any sense of urgency in our most important priorities, like funding the government and funding the military. On top of that, a number of our Democratic friends who are running for President claim we should ban fracking. I would really like to ask them if they even know what that is or how it works. Some of them have said they also want to ban the export of crude oil. This month, for the first time in 70 years, America became a net exporter of oil. I will talk more about that in a moment. Some are saying they even want to go so far as to ban the use of natural gas. Natural gas has been responsible for taking formerly coal- fired powerplants and putting them into a cleaner energy source, which has actually reduced emissions by a substantial amount, but, no, in pursuit of their pie-in-the-sky utopian dreams, the ideologues want to eliminate something that has been a very substantial improvement in terms of the reduction of emissions while providing affordable energy. I think it is safe to say that we all agree--Republicans, Democrats, Independents, everybody--we should do what we can to protect our environment. In fact, we live here. We breathe the air. We drink the water. We should all be equally concerned about the environment. I really think some of these proposals are nothing more than virtue signaling. They are not a solution to a problem. All of these folks are trying to paint the energy industry as the enemy in the process. Every good story needs a villain, and our friends on the left believe the energy industry that has provided that cheap gasoline so people can drive to work, take their kids to school, or go about their business is really the enemy, not our friend. Well, it is just not the case. By the rhetoric you are hearing, you would think oil and gas companies have bankrupted the country, ruined our international alliances, and sent the entire globe into an energy famine. Well, that is not true. It is just the opposite of truth. When you talk about global energy security, American oil and gas has reversed the tide of the energy landscape in our favor and supported our friends and allies around the world in important ways. Our colleagues proposing these unworkable and unaffordable mandates would be wise to look at how the global energy landscape has changed over the last half century and consider the broader consequences of their proposal. To understand the importance of American energy on the world stage, we need to rewind just a bit to the 1970s. At that time, the vast majority of the world's oil and gas came from the Middle East, giving these nations a great deal of power. In fact, you may remember back in 1980 President Jimmy Carter announced something called the Carter Doctrine. He said if any foreign power would block the flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz, it would be an act of war. That is what Jimmy Carter said in 1980, such was our reliance on imported energy from the Middle East. Our country dealt with this situation, and we addressed it responsibly and effectively. We know another indication of our dependence on imported energy is when the United States supported our friend and ally Israel in the Yom Kippur war of 1973. OPEC, the organization of petroleum exported countries, primarily Middle East countries, banned the sale of crude oil to the United States. Those who are old enough to remember, remember that prices quadrupled, some States banned neon signs to cut down on energy use because they were worried about the energy that would be necessary to create that electricity, and a number of towns asked for citizens not to even put up Christmas lights. This was because our source of oil and gas was cut off from the Middle East, such was our dependence. Despite strong domestic production, we were still relying heavily on imports. Once that supply was cut off, we were caught flat-footed. The Arab oil embargo brought to light the risk of our energy independence and underscored the need for America to do something about it. There was a consensus--has been a consensus--that we needed to grow our supplies here at home so we were less dependent on imports. So less than 2 years later, Congress, thinking we were doing a good thing, put a ban on export on American crude because we thought we needed it here and didn't want to export it abroad. Over the next four decades, a lot has changed. Advancements in the energy sector, including hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, have dramatically increased the production of American energy. As I said, for the first time in 70 years, America has become a net exporter of oil. That is how dramatically this has turned around. In the process, we have achieved our goal of reducing our reliance on imported energy from dangerous and unsettled regions of the world, like the Middle East, but pretty soon we found ourselves sitting on a gold mine, and it became clear it was time to lift the export ban. In 2015, after 40 years of no exports, that is what Congress did. We did so because we believed, No. 1, we had more than we could use here in America, but we also believed this would be a huge boon to our economy. That was part of the equation. Just as we were able to reduce our reliance on oil from unreliable and unstable regions of the world, we knew that by exporting the oil that America produced, we could help other countries--our friends and allies around the world--that were dangerously dependent on sources of energy from countries like Russia that is all too ready to use energy as a weapon. They say: Do what we say, and we will keep the energy and gas flowing. Do something we don't like, and we will shut you down. In the not-so-distant past, many of our allies in Europe looked to Iran and Russia for their energy needs, and the Baltic States, all NATO allies, relied almost exclusively on Russia for their oil, gas, and electricity. Seven European countries depended on Russia for 80 percent of their gas, and on the whole, one-third of the gas Europe consumed came from Russia. When our allies are looking to our adversaries for basic needs like heating, electricity, and fuel, that is a real problem. It is a strategic vulnerability not only for those countries but also for the United States. Our friend John McCain had quite a sense of humor--those of us who knew him during his lifetime. He aptly described Russia as a gas station masquerading as a country. Russia's ability to export that energy to other countries was the lifeline for their country. I think Senator McCain hit the nail on the head, especially when Russia uses that energy as a weapon. As I alluded, in 2009, we saw the vulnerability this created when Russia effectively turned the lights off in Ukraine. For almost 3 weeks, they shut down the energy supply. This affected at least 10 countries in Europe whose natural gas traveled through Ukraine. Just as the United States realized how dangerous our foreign oil reliance was, our allies began to understand the implications of their dependency as well. Many of our friends in Europe have been working to diversify their energy supply, which is a good thing, and build strategic gas interconnectors between countries reliant on Russia for natural gas. Getting a diversity of sources is an insurance policy for those countries so Russia can't just cut off their energy supply. Supplying our friends around the world with American oil and gas not only strengthens our security but it alleviates the power our adversaries, like Russia, hold in important regions of the world, like Europe. In addition to increasing global security, American oil and gas has allowed us to provide affordable, plentiful, and reliable energy to countries struggling to provide power for their own citizens. If you think about it, low-cost energy coming from America has the potential to be the greatest poverty reduction program in memory. For example, when I first traveled to India in 2004--if you drive from Delhi, the capital, to Agra, where the Taj Mahal is, you will drive across vast areas where the population is very poor. Huge swaths of that population lack access to things to cook their food with or electricity to light their homes. So what do they do? Well, they burn cow dung; they burn coal; they burn wood pellets or other high-emission fuel sources. By America agreeing to export the energy we have here-- the cleaner energy we have here--we are agreeing to help one of our closest friends and partners in the world and, in the process, help Prime Minister Modi and the leadership there lift more Indians out of this grinding poverty and relying on things like cow dung simply to cook their food. Last year, we doubled the amount of LNG exported to India, and I dare say that the sky is the limit. I think many of our Democratic colleagues should reflect back on the lessons of history before advocating a return to the 1970s when it comes to the way we approach American energy. I understand the importance of innovation in the energy sector to lower emissions, and I am all in, but rather than another government program, higher taxes, more regulation, or surrendering control of our freedom to Washington, DC, why don't we let the innovators, the entrepreneurs, come up with solutions? That is what has happened when it comes to American oil and gas. They came up with the answer, not Washington, DC, and we are all benefiting from the results. When it comes to innovation, I have introduced legislation--and a number of our other colleagues have, too--to increase research dollars going into ways to lower emissions by looking at alternative ways to deal with energy production, like electricity. For example, there is a small natural gas-fired powerplant in La Porte, TX--which I visited with our friend Senator Collins from Maine--that emits zero carbon dioxide. That is a boon to the environment, and I think it also provides a solution to the oil and gas industry because what they do is pipe the CO2 off the back end, and they use it to inject into the ground in the oilfields, so they produce more oil and gas. It is called secondary recovery. Here at home, it is easy to take dependable energy for granted. We do it all the time. We don't worry about having the energy to cook our dinner at night or refill our cars' gas tanks. We take that all for granted. But the truth is, in countless countries in the world and for the majority of the world, it is a completely different story. For our friends who advocate these utopian ideas like the Green New Deal, I don't begrudge their desire to improve the environment, but I would ask them to be more pragmatic when it comes to trying to solve the problem. I would ask them: Are you really trying to solve a problem? If you are, we want to work with you to reduce emissions, but if your goal is to pursue some fantasy that will not work and we can't afford, count me out. If you want to solve the problem, count me in. American energy is simply powering the world. It is strengthening global security and lifting millions of people out of poverty. We need to continue to harness the power of one of our country's greatest national assets. I will conclude there. I will continue to share some of my thoughts on the importance of American energy on the Senate floor. It is a topic bigger than one floor speech, and it will hopefully remind and encourage all of the Members of the Senate to work toward energy abundance and help keep energy affordable, which will improve the standard of living and the quality of the lives of all Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Lydon nomination, Calendar No. 489, be made pending.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator from Maine speaking about the virtues of wild Maine blueberries. They happen to be one of my favorite foods--obviously, the lobsters as well. I agree with him that there appears to be an arbitrary distinction with these support payments that are supposed to compensate farmers for the trade war with China, which I think, unfortunately, is necessary to get China to conform to a rules-based system when it comes to international trade. Certainly, in the interest of preserving the wild Maine blueberry, I am happy to offer any services I might be able to provide to support our colleagues from Maine.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, over the weekend, we marked 1 year since the leaders of the United States, Mexico, and Canada signed the U.S.- Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement. This modern trade agreement will replace the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, which has been the guiding force for North American trade for the past quarter of a century. When NAFTA was created, its goal was to remove barriers that impede free and fair trade and provide economic benefits to all three countries. By any measure, NAFTA has been an overwhelming success, but a lot has changed in 25 years since NAFTA went into effect, and it is time to bring North American trade into the 21st century. That is precisely what the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, USMCA, will do. It preserves the hallmark provisions of NAFTA, like duty-free access to Mexican and Canadian markets, and adds measures to modernize the agreement. The USMCA provides strong protections for intellectual property, which is critical to protecting the incredible innovation that Americans do right here at home. It also cuts redtape that is preventing countless small businesses from tapping into foreign markets, and it accounts for e-commerce and digital products, something unheard of 25 years ago, at a time when governments around the world are proposing all kinds of new taxes on e-commerce. It is actually the first free-trade agreement with a digital trade chapter. That is why a lot of folks call this NAFTA 2.0. It is better. It is stronger. It modernizes the original NAFTA. We have been told by the experts that the USMCA will lead to increased wealth and jobs here in the United States--about 176,000 new jobs. That is on top of the 13 million jobs currently supported by trade between Canada, the United States, and Mexico. It is expected to have a positive impact on every industry sector of the U.S. economy and a more than $33 billion increase in our exports-- things we grow, like wild Maine blueberries, and sell overseas, things we make and manufacture. This isn't just a win for our farmers, manufacturers, and consumers; it is a win for our entire country. Coincidentally, it is also a big win for Texas. Our State has the 10th largest economy in the world, and it is the engine behind much of our country's trade. In 2018, we exported more than $137 billion in goods and services to Canada and Mexico. With the passage of the USMCA, that number will go up. I think the only question left is, When will we get a chance to vote on it? Mexico approved the deal in June. Canada is moving toward ratification soon, so the only remaining hurdle is the green light from Speaker Pelosi and the House of Representatives. We heard early on that House Democrats had some concerns with the agreement, but we were told by the administration--Ambassador Lighthizer, for example--that he thought the negotiations with the House were going well and were being done in good faith. Mexico has made commitments related to some of the labor provisions that were a concern to our Democratic colleagues. President Lopez Obrador even wrote a letter to the Speaker last week affirming that they will fulfill the promises they made. Speaker Pelosi has said repeatedly over the last year that progress was being made and that we are close to a deal and that she hopes we will vote soon. We have heard that over and over and over but still no vote. Here we are. More than 365 days have gone by since this agreement was signed, and the House still hasn't had a vote. Rather than working to iron out the final details so we can get the USMCA moving before Christmas, the Speaker kicked off the week in Spain talking about the Paris accord and climate change. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues seem to want to talk about anything and everything other than the priorities we should have in the Congress. Whether they want to be absorbed by impeachment mania or they want to talk about climate change in London, in Paris, they want to talk about anything other than the work that is right here in front of us that we need to get done: things like the USMCA, things like lowering drug prices for consumers, things like an infrastructure bill and improving our highways and bridges, reducing traffic--which we all hate on a bipartisan basis-- addressing some of the root causes of the mass violence incidents, including mental health challenges that many people face who are a danger to themselves and others, and things like how can we get people who should be conducting background checks on firearm purchases--making sure that the laws on the books are being enforced. Those are all things we can and should be doing. Apparently, that is not the priority for the Speaker. For an entire year now, House Democrats have kept American farmers, businesses, workers, and consumers waiting. With each day that goes by, while the USMCA waits in purgatory, the American people are missing out. We know that the longer this goes on, the closer this gets into the active election season of 2020, the less likely it is that we are actually going to have the bandwidth to get it done. I don't understand why our Democratic colleagues are putting new American jobs on hold. Are they saying we don't need this increased wealth that this trade agreement will bring? Is that really their argument? Are they telling the American businesses that they really don't care about leveling the playing field? Is that the message we are supposed to get from this lack of activity, this inaction? With House Democrats working overtime in the futile effort to remove the President from office and undo an election, they are squandering what may be our biggest opportunity this Congress. Unfortunately, partisanship has broken out and obstructed bipartisan desire to get our work done, including the USMCA. I mentioned some of the other things we could and should be doing. A few weeks ago, the minority leader, the Democratic leader, singlehandedly blocked a bipartisan bill that the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, and I introduced that would bring down prescription drug prices. This bill passed--sailed through--the Senate Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan, unanimous vote. Yet, when we brought it to the floor, our Democratic colleague the minority leader, who called this a good bill and well-intentioned, objected to its passage. Then there is the appropriations process that had been thrown into chaos. In August, we had an agreement on spending caps for the next 2 years. We thought we had overcome the biggest hurdle to getting our work done in order to make sure our military was funded and to make sure that we were meeting the other financial obligations that the Federal Government has to meet, but our Democratic colleagues walked back on the commitment they had made in August over a 0.3-percent disagreement on Federal spending. That is right--0.3-percent of what the Federal Government spends. That is what caused them to backtrack on their agreement. They have now kept our military waiting for the funding and the stability it needs to keep our Nation safe. They have also defeated, at least temporarily, a bipartisan--nearly unanimous--prescription drug bill that would bring down prescription drug costs, and it is hard for me to understand why. I would like to be able to head home for the Christmas holidays with some good news--good news for the Texans who are eager to see the USMCA ratified. Generally speaking, I am a ``glass half full'' kind of guy, not a ``glass half empty,'' but I am losing confidence that we will see progress on the USMCA before Christmas. The longer this goes on, the less likely we will actually find the opportunity to get it done. It seems to me that impeachment mania has consumed this Congress and rendered our colleagues on the other side incapable of focusing on anything other than removing President Trump from office. Time is running out, and I hope the USMCA doesn't become the latest casualty to land in Senator Schumer's legislative graveyard. At some point, we have to put politics aside and do what we were sent here to do, which is to make progress that will benefit the American people. Let's hope we can do that during this holiday season before it is over.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I rise to join my colleagues today in celebrating the distinguished career of our friend, Johnny Isakson. It is a great moment for all of us to talk about our shared aspirations as representatives of the American people, to recognize the role that we play--that all Americans play--in supporting our country, and to celebrate some of our successes. We have heard a lot about Senator Isakson's successes as a legislator and maybe to shrug off a few of our failures, but reaffirm our determination to make self-government work. The senior Senator from Georgia did not set out to build a long, storied career in politics, I am told, or even to enter public service at all, for that matter. After graduating from the University of Georgia, he began a 40-year career in real estate. He opened a branch of Northside Realty and would later spend more than 20 years as that company's president. Johnny's career in public service began in a unique way. It was by winning an election that he never entered. He made the mistake of not showing up at a meeting where he was selected as a member of a new commission, as new commission president, with the host of zoning issues that riddled the community, so that was Johnny's first election, as the new commission president of the zoning commission. Of course, in that position, you could imagine he listened to his neighbors' concerns, and he would work with the commission to make improvements, but the truth is, from that point onward, Johnny was hooked. He went on to serve in the State house, the State senate, the U.S. House, and finally in the U.S. Senate, as the first and only Georgian to hold all four titles. As we have heard--but it bears repeating--at each step, he never lost sight of his most important responsibility: to listen to his constituents and to work every day to make their lives just a little better. Here in the Senate, I have had the privilege, as we all have had, of working with Johnny on a number of bills to empower our military, strengthen American agriculture, and improve our Nation's healthcare, but I believe his lasting legacy, the thing that perhaps is the most important to my mind that he should be very proud of--and I know he is--is our collective work together to support our Nation's veterans. Johnny is a veteran himself, and he didn't take the position as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee lightly. He never stopped listening to America's veterans or fighting to ensure they have the services and the support they have earned. One of the seminal pieces of legislation that we passed thanks to Johnny's leadership was the VA MISSION Act, which made significant reforms to the Department of Veterans Affairs and strengthened healthcare options for all veterans. This was not an easy piece of legislation to move through the legislative process, which, as we all know, under the Constitution and under the way Congress works, essentially, the system is dead set to defeat you, and you have to find a way to navigate it in a way to get things done, which is hard work. But at every step, Johnny helped guide this legislation from a bill that looked good on paper to a law that has made a real difference in the lives of our veterans. He did what he does best; that is, listened, learned, negotiated, and built consensus between people who had very different views of what that law should look like. In the end, it was because of his hard work and dedication that it passed and was signed into law. As great as his legislative impact has been, his personal impact on all of us has been immeasurable. During the time I served as the Republican whip, I had a chance to work with him most often and saw how this soft-spoken master operated. Two years ago, we were working on tax reform, and I remember one crucial meeting at a luncheon conference we had. We wanted to make sure everybody was on the same page because we knew that failure was not an option. Our Members heard from colleagues who were subject-matter experts, who had been working on tax reform, but I think the most encouraging words we heard came from Johnny Isakson. It reminds me of that old movie that Ronald Reagan was in where the coach, Knute Rockne, talked about an ailing player, George Gipp. He talked about winning one for the Gipper. Well, Johnny told us to win one for the Gipper that day, and we all left excited, inspired, and eager to accomplish our goals. That meeting showed a lot about who Johnny Isakson is. He is rarely the loudest voice in the room, but when he speaks, people listen. He isn't the type to pat himself on the back. He isn't afraid to work behind the scenes or let his work go unnoticed in the press, and he cares about getting results and results alone. He doesn't care who gets the credit. I believe the reason Johnny Isakson has been able to accomplish so much here in the Senate--and he has--is because of his focus on building relationships. In fact, as we have heard, you would be hard- pressed to find somebody more well-liked or well-respected by folks on both sides of the aisle. I think Johnny summed it up himself pretty well recently when he said: It's about relationships. It's about respect. It's about motivation, and it's about getting things done. So make friends. Be a friend, and know how to be a friend. It makes all the difference in the world. I am sure that is true in life in general, but it is certainly true in the U.S. Senate. That is how our friend Johnny Isakson has gained the respect of every Senator in this Chamber. He is a straight shooter, a man of great integrity, and an honest broker. He is not just a nice guy by Washington, DC, standards; he is a nice guy by any standard. I know our friend from Georgia is sad, perhaps, to leave this Chamber, and we are equally sad to bid him farewell. The Halls of Congress will not be the same without Johnny Isakson. I will personally miss those Wednesday mornings together at the Senate Prayer Breakfast and catching up with my friend here on the Senate floor. I know we will all miss his great example--this humble man of great integrity, who has taught us all how to work together. When another Georgia colleague, Saxby Chambliss, retired 5 years ago, Senator Isakson said Saxby would join Richard Russell, Zell Miller, and Sam Nunn and become the fourth face on the Mount Rushmore of Georgia Senators. Well, Johnny, I think they are going to have to make room for a fifth. I thank our good friend Johnny Isakson for his dedicated service to his State, to our country, and to this institution. I join all of our colleagues in wishing him well, along with his wife, Dianne, their three children, and their eight grandchildren. We wish him all the best as he retires to his beloved Georgia.

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 had a wonderful Thanksgiving break, and I trust the Presiding Officer did, too. I hope all enjoyed time with their families and friends last week. It was my pleasure to be back home in Texas and spend time with some incredible people who and some organizations that are doing a lot of good in their communities. For example, I volunteered at the Central Texas Food Bank, which has a service area that is twice the size of Massachusetts. It has been fighting hunger for nearly four decades. I joined those there to help distribute to low-income families some of the food they had collected as they prepared for Thanksgiving, and I had the chance to speak with dozens of constituents there in the Austin area. Then I got in my car and went south about 70 miles to San Antonio, which is my hometown, where I volunteered with the preparations for the 40th annual Raul Jimenez Thanksgiving Dinner. As I said, this dinner has been going on for 40 years, and it serves 25,000 people each year in the San Antonio area who might otherwise go hungry. The numbers are immense. I spent a little bit of time as a volunteer with a number of folks and picked the turkeys apart and broke them up into small, bite- sized pieces. They told me that they served 9,400 pounds of turkey during this 40th anniversary dinner. It is really one of my favorite events each year, and it was made even more special since they dedicated this year's dinner to Mary, Raul's wife, who, sadly, passed away earlier this year. Then I traveled up to Wichita Falls, where I was able to spend a little bit of time at Sheppard Air Force Base with the families of deployed airmen. I think it is very important that we remember, particularly during the holidays, that having a loved one in the military service who is deployed and separated from the rest of the family involves a lot of sacrifice, not only on the part of the servicemember but on the ones who are left behind, as that hole in your heart feels a little bit bigger during the holidays. My dad served 31 years in the U.S. Air Force. Fortunately, by the time I came along, his long-term deployments had long been over. Still, every time I meet a young family whose loved one is deployed overseas while the family waits behind, it tugs at my heartstrings. So we thank not only those who wear the uniform of the U.S. military but those family members as well, who, I believe, also serve. We have an all-volunteer military. No one makes you join the military anymore in America. We should thank all of them for their service in different ways. It was encouraging to me to meet with these patriots and thank them for their sacrifices and help to distribute a little bit of Thanksgiving love and food ahead of the holiday. I came back here to Washington refreshed, having spent that time with constituents and family and friends, and I am eager to get back to work. We know that the countdown to Christmas is on, and we have a long to- do list before we are through. One of our top priorities, strange as it may sound, is to actually pass appropriations bills to fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year. I believe that the single most important function of the Federal Government--something that none of us can do individually nor the States collectively--is to provide for the common defense. The way we do that is by funding our military and making sure that they have the training, the leadership, and the materials they need in order to fight and win our Nation's wars or, ideally, to not have to fight our Nation's wars because nobody will dare mess with the U.S. military. That is why it is particularly sad to see that we find ourselves balled up in this appropriations process this late in the year. Over the summer we came to a bipartisan, bicameral agreement to guide the appropriations process and, hopefully, to eliminate this uncertainty going into the Christmas season. Last August we had an agreement that provided a roadmap for negotiations this fall, and we all promised to work together in good faith and to stay away from poison pill policy riders and other things that might derail this appropriations process. Well, obviously things did not work the way we had planned. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues went back on their promise because of a disagreement over 0.3 percent of the federal budget. You heard that correctly--0.3 percent. A disagreement over domestic spending involving 0.3 percent of the Federal budget derailed all of the appropriations process and leaves us in our current state of dysfunction. So rather than passing appropriations bills on time, as we were on track to do, we passed two short-term funding bills, and we are working day and night to avoid needing another one when the current continuing resolution expires on December 20. I know Chairman Shelby and our colleagues and the staff on the appropriations committees have been trying to build consensus on these funding bills, and I can only hope and pray that we can reach an agreement soon. There are a lot of other things that we can and should be doing. We started this year off with a government shutdown, and we can't afford to make that an annual affair, but this roller coaster ride involving short-term spending bills puts us in a bad position, particularly for our military and other areas of government that need certainty and need to be able to make plans. As our troops are serving around the globe to keep us safe, as well as our friends and allies abroad, we need to do everything in our power here at home to give them the stability they need to succeed. Our commanders and military leaders have repeatedly told us how difficult it is to plan for the future without a predictable budget, and the constantly evolving threat landscape only underscores that need. We need to get that done. In addition to funding the military, we need to finish up the National Defense Authorization Act and get it to the President's desk. Every year since 1961, Congress has passed the National Defense Authorization Act without delay, and now is not the time to get bogged down in partisan fights in Congress and fail to do what we have done each year since 1961. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues in the House are trying to use this must-pass piece of legislation to leverage some of their liberal wish list. The version of this legislation passed by the House earlier this year is so partisan that it didn't get a single Republican vote--not one. Putting our national security on the line in order to pander to radical factions in the opposing party is absolutely shameful. There are some things that should rise above politics, rise above partisanship, and providing for our military is first on that list. I appreciate our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, led by Chairman Inhofe, who have been fighting to get these poison pills out of this legislation so we can pass the National Defense Authorization Act without any additional delay. It is critical that we get these bills moving before everyone heads home for the holidays. There is one other piece of legislation I hope we can deliver before we leave. Over the last few weeks, I have been hearing rumors--which I hope are true--that a deal on the USMCA is very close. The USMCA, of course, is the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, which is the successor to NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA is reported to support, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, about 13 million jobs in America--8 million with our binational trade with Canada and 5 million with Mexico. This comes after nearly a year of negotiations between the administration and Speaker Pelosi and her House colleagues to resolve some differences, and I am cautiously optimistic that we may yet see an agreement soon. We have been anxious to get the final agreement so the House can begin processing it and then send it over here so we can begin reviewing it in the Senate Finance Committee. The experts have told us that this agreement would lead to increased wealth for the United States and more than 176,000 new jobs. So it is time to get it ratified, but with the House continuing its single- minded obsession to impeach the President, I hope this trade agreement doesn't fall victim to impeachment mania. Whether I am meeting with farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, small businesses or just average Texans, one of the top questions I get at home is this: When is the USMCA going to pass? I heard last week that it is one of the top Federal priorities for the Central Texas Food Bank. I would like to be able to head home for Christmas in a few weeks with some great news for my constituents back home. With impeachment using up most of the oxygen in Washington, I am afraid our ability to get bipartisan work done is getting smaller and smaller. If the impeachment circus makes its way to this side of the Capitol, that ability may completely go away. If we stick to the timeline of the Clinton impeachment, that would mean the articles of impeachment would be voted on in late December, and then, literally, for the first 5 or 6 weeks of 2020, the Senate would be required to sit as the jury in impeachment proceedings, during which time nothing else can be done. We need to check these critical items off of Congress's to-do list over the next few weeks--the things that we can and should get done before the Christmas holidays, and I am eager to get to work and to do my part. Our hope is that our friends on the other side of the aisle will join us in the same commitment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ken Ciarletta, Hannah Kitzmiller, Seth MacKinney, Colleen O'Connell, Matthew Sartor, Maxwell Turner, and Riya Vashi, who are interns in Senator Isakson's office, be granted floor privileges on Tuesday, December 3.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jason Maynard, who is a defense fellow in Senator Isakson's office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last few months, our friend and colleague, the minority leader, has railed about the lack of legislative progress here in the Senate. He believes the Senate should spend time taking up ultrapartisan bills that have passed the House of Representatives, but the truth is, we respectfully decline to take up those bills, which, in some instances, would infringe Americans' Constitutional rights, send taxpayer dollars to political candidates, and move us closer and closer to socialized medicine. Now, our colleague likes to call these dead-on-arrival partisan bills part of the legislative graveyard, but our colleague from New York has opened up a graveyard of his own, only his isn't full of partisan legislation that could never pass the Senate, let alone become the law. No. Our friend--the Democratic leader's legislative graveyard exclusively caters to bipartisan bills. Now, it is full of commonsense and critically important legislation that would actually make the lives of the American people better if only our friend from New York would stand down. Today, we had a chance to kick the can down the road once more when it comes to Federal funding because our colleagues across the aisle have put government funding bills 6 feet under. Over the summer, as you will recall, we came to a bipartisan agreement on spending caps, a bicameral agreement to guide the appropriations process. We had a deal. It provided a roadmap for negotiations this fall, and we all promised to work hard and in good faith and stay away from poison pill policy riders. But, unfortunately, that promise was not kept, and our colleagues can't seem to put politics aside long enough to even fund the government. And why? Because of a disagreement over .3 percent of Federal spending--0.3 percent. They have twice blocked vital funding for our military. They have blocked funding for mental health programs, for border security, for grant programs for schools--all over these petty disputes. So here we are, almost 2 months into the fiscal year, and we haven't sent a single appropriations bill to the President's desk, not one. Well, with the government set to shut down at midnight tonight, at least we passed a bill to keep the trains running for 1 more month. Maybe this was the least bad choice we had in light of these broken promises. The stopgap funding bill carries through December 20 and provides another opportunity for our colleagues across the aisle to make good on their August commitments to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, using the normal appropriations process. I hope that good faith negotiations can resume and we can fund the remainder of the fiscal year by Christmas because the last stocking stuffer we want to give the American people is another government shutdown. And it is particularly important for us to fund our military in an increasingly dangerous world where weakness is indeed a provocation for the bullies and authoritarians who want to take advantage of the lack of American leadership, in this case because Congress simply refuses to do its job to fund the military. Well, I would be wrong to say it is all bad news. I am an optimist by nature. It reminds me of the story of the little boy who comes down Christmas morning and finds a pile of manure under the Christmas tree. He asked, ``Where is the pony?'' I am an optimist by nature. Yesterday, we did manage to make some small progress when we unanimously passed a bipartisan bill that I introduced with Mr. Merkley, the Senator from Oregon, to ban the sale of riot control material to the Hong Kong police force. As freedom-seeking protesters on the other side of the globe risked life and limb for the freedoms we too often take for granted, we cannot condone police brutality. Admittedly, this is a small but important step to show we stand with the people of Hong Kong, but I find this ironic. The minority leader is fine with passing incremental bills to support the people of Hong Kong, but when it comes to passing incremental bills to support the American people, he objects. I think the best example is the legislation that I have introduced to bring down prescription drug prices. Last week, I came to the Senate floor with my friend, colleague, and cosponsor, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, to ask that our bill to reduce drug prices be passed. No one else had an objection other than the Democratic leader. The premise of the bill was pretty simple: prevent drugmakers from gaming the patent system to monopolize the market. Our bill strikes a delicate balance of protecting innovation while encouraging competition, and it would be a win for every American who has felt the pain or sticker shock at the pharmacy counter. This bill, amazingly, passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously. I served on the Judiciary Committee my entire time on the Senate, and it is famous for its contentiousness, and we passed it unanimously. Every Republican and every Democrat voted for it. So you can imagine my optimism, my hope, that the bill would sail through the Senate, meet up with welcoming arms in the House, and then get to the President for his signature, but I guess I should have known better. Our Democratic colleagues have continued to throw up roadblocks for things as critical as funding the military, so why would they let this bill that would bring down prescription costs for consumers, why would they let it pass? So right on cue, the Democratic leader came to the floor and he objected. He was the only person out of 100 Senators to object. He did not object because of the substance. As a matter of fact, he called it a well-intentioned and good bill, but he objected. He certainly did not object because it was a partisan bill. The bill has six Democratic cosponsors, including the minority whip, the Senator from Illinois, and the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Murray from Washington State. So the only reason I can think of that he would object is because he doesn't want to see anyone whose name happened to be on the ballot in 2020 score a win. Well, how unworthy of the U.S. Senate is that sort of thinking? We should not be thinking in terms of who is going to win or lose politically if we pass good legislation. We ought to be doing the Nation's work and working together in a bipartisan basis, not trying to bring the 2020 election here to the Senate floor. But this bill isn't the only one that is subject to these kinds of politics, unfortunately. Critical legislation to support victims of domestic violence and sexual assault have also gotten caught up in this way of thinking. After months of bipartisan negotiations to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, our Democratic colleagues simply walked away from the negotiating table. Rather than reaching a compromise, building consensus on a bill that could pass both Chambers and become law, once again, our Democratic colleagues chose the partisan path and walked away from the table. They have introduced a near replica of the partisan House-passed bill for VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act, which they know doesn't stand a chance of passing here in the Senate because it is not a consensus product. That is not news to our friends on the other side of the aisle. They understand that this is more about the issue than it is solving the problem, the political issue. I think they turned their back on bipartisan talks, not because they had a better solution, which is what we ought to be about, but because our friend and Democratic leader doesn't want to give any Republican colleagues who are leading the negotiations, like the Senator from Iowa, Ms. Ernst, allow her to get a win. This is really, again, unworthy of the Senate to think in those petty sorts of terms. I think we should concentrate on who would win if we passed the Violence Against Women Act, which would be the many victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. We ought to be thinking about them and whether they would win if we passed bipartisan legislation. Now, I believe the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, wants to come back to the negotiating table. She told me that herself yesterday, but I also believe the Democratic leader probably isn't going to let that happen. Like me, Senator Ernst is on the ballot next year. Again, the minority leader has demonstrated his focus on politics rather than substance and doing what actually will help the American people: no bills to lower drug prices, no bills to support victims of domestic violence, nada. He can't afford to let any Republican bills pass because it might just hurt his chances of becoming the majority leader after the 2020 election. I think it is a shame that the partisanship in the House has now infected the Senate and prevented us from passing bills that would make the American people's lives better. I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle have a great Thanksgiving break, and I hope that he will use that time to reconsider why it is they are here in the first place, why we are all here. We are all here to make the Senate work for the benefit of the American people and not to engage in these unworthy petty political games leading up to the 2020 election. United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement Mr. President, on another matter, before election year politics completely halt the work of the Senate, here we are, 1 year before the election, one item I am really hoping we can deliver for the American people in addition to the ones I mentioned is the USMCA, the U.S.- Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement. This trade agreement, as we know, will replace NAFTA, or the North American Free Trade Agreement, and help drive our trade relationship with Mexico and Canada into the 21st century. When you consider the number of American jobs that depend on trade with Mexico and Canada, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce cites a figure of 13 million jobs--13 million jobs that depend on that trade with Mexico and Canada. When you consider actions being taken by China to counter our interests all around the world, our reliance on North American partners is becoming increasingly important. The USMCA is not only an opportunity to strengthen North America's position on the global stage, but it is important, as I suggested, to our economy right here in the United States. Earlier this year, the International Trade Commission provided some insight into what we can expect to see if this trade agreement is ratified, as it should be. The USMCA is expected to have a positive impact on every sector of the U.S. economy. Within 6 years, we are looking at 176,000 new American jobs and an increase in American gross domestic product of more than $68 billion. That is bigger than the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. We can also look forward to more than a $33 billion increase in exports and more than $31 billion in imports. We know that many of those exports and imports travel across the border in Texas because we share 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico, and we have many ports of entry in our State. In 2018 alone, Texas exported nearly $110 billion in goods to Mexico and imported more than $107 billion from Mexico. With the increased trade and travel we expect to see once the USMCA is ratified, we need to make sure that our ports of entry, through which these goods flow, are prepared. We have been working with the administration on this, and I have requested funding to prioritize Texas's ports and make sure they are safe and efficient. I am also hoping the USMCA will include provisions from a bill I introduced earlier with another border State Senator, our friend Senator Feinstein from California. This would improve the North American Development Bank, sometimes called the NAD Bank, which invests in our border communities and particularly in the infrastructure. For every one NAD Bank dollar that has been invested in a project, that successfully leveraged $20 in total infrastructure investment using public and private sector dollars. Throughout NAD Bank's 25-year history, they have taken on projects that have improved air and water quality, updated infrastructure, and increased cross-border trade. NAD Bank brings Mexico and the United States together to finance these projects to improve trade and travel and quality of life on both sides of the border. This legislation that Senator Feinstein and I have introduced would authorize the Treasury Department to increase its capital and provide additional authority to fund critical projects. I have been working with my friend and Democratic colleague from Laredo, TX, Congressman Cuellar, to make sure that these provisions are included in the final text of the USMCA. My hope is we will be able to take those provisions up as well as the entire agreement and ratify it soon, but it depends on Speaker Pelosi. Everybody is waiting for her to show the green light and for the House to act. I am concerned that as we get closer and closer into an election season, it is going to be harder and harder for the House to even pass this bipartisan trade deal. I read today that she is not predicting they will even be able to get it done before the end of the year. I note that she made that comment roughly on the same day the House adjourned for 10 days. The House does not appear to be in any hurry, to be sure. In fact, they have dragged their feet for many months on something that is vitally important to our economy and job creation right here in the U.S.A. Texans enjoy a strong trading relationship with our southern neighbor, and I am confident the USMCA will continue to propel that relationship forward as well as continue to grow our economy and create jobs and more opportunity for the American people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to begin by thanking our friend and colleague from Iowa, Senator Ernst, for her leadership on the reauthorization and--indeed, I think the important point should be made--to strengthen the Violence Against Women Act. We don't have to settle for the House bill. We can have a better bill for victims of domestic violence. Unfortunately, like so much important work, we seem constantly to get diverted and distracted and dragged down by the partisanship that seems to dominate Washington, DC, these days. For many months, our colleague from Iowa has been working closely with Senator Feinstein from California to try to figure a way to reauthorize this critical law. In the meantime, though, not on one occasion but on two occasions, we have offered a continuing resolution that would extend the current reauthorization and our Democratic colleagues have shut that down. So we are in unchartered territory where we don't currently have an authorization for the Violence Against Women Act. I shared our colleague's disappointment when our Democratic colleagues walked away from the negotiating table and chose to introduce a replica of the House's partisan bill, which as you have heard, does not have the support to pass in the Senate. Let me say one thing that should be abundantly clear but sometimes I think it gets lost: We all agree that more must be done to prevent violence and respond to it. It is fair to say that we have different opinions on what those pathways look like, but one thing that should not be up for debate is whether or not we reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. That is something we need to do. The fact is that we don't have to settle for the House bill. We can do better. Our Democratic colleagues took an interesting approach in introducing a bill that a majority of people in this Chamber will not support, and they know that. Sadly, that is part of the point. They know they have a bill that does not enjoy consensus support because they would rather make the political point and argument that somehow some of us on this side don't believe in supporting victims of domestic violence, which is absolutely a falsehood. It is a lie. During a press conference, the Senator from Hawaii even conceded five times that the House bill is going nowhere, but that is the path our Democratic colleagues have chosen. Rather than working in a bipartisan fashion to build a consensus package that could actually become law, they decided to head down a partisan path led by the House bill, which came to us 7 months ago. Clearly, some of our colleagues here in the Senate are not interested in actually making laws. They are in it for the headlines, for the politics. In the face of this ridiculous and unacceptable jockeying, I am glad that today Senator Ernst will introduce a consensus alternative to the bill offered by our colleagues, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of the legislation. This bill introduced by the Senator from Iowa will send more funding and more resources to the Violence Against Women Act than the Democrats' bill. It is actually better and will authorize a program for twice as long. It will give the Department of Justice the stability it needs to plan for the future without being jerked around by partisan gains. This bill includes a lot more than just funding. It also addresses a number of horrific crimes that are being committed against women and girls in our country. Sex trafficking, for example, is currently not always recognized as a form of sexual assault--and it is--but this bill would make that clear. It would also enhance the maximum criminal penalties for sexual abuse of minors and other vulnerable groups. It will, as you heard, take aim at heinous crimes like mutilation and address crimes in rural areas and on Tribal lands. This legislation includes provisions from a number of bipartisan bills that have been introduced in the Senate to both improve resources for victims and target specific types of abuse. One example is a bill I introduced with the Senator from California, my friend Senator Feinstein, called the HEALS Act, which will remove some of the hurdles that exist between victims of domestic violence and their access to safe housing. That is in our bill. This provision would also include greater flexibility for transitional housing programs so that survivors can get back on their feet without the fear of losing the roof over their head. This bill includes language introduced by Senators Murkowski and Cortez Masto to combat the epidemic of murdered and missing Native women and girls. It will allow for better law enforcement coordination and provide local and Tribal law enforcement with more resources to address these crimes. It is critical that we all call attention to these despicable acts of violence and unequivocally reject them without regard to partisanship or party. Another challenge we face is technology outpacing our ability to counter certain types of exploitation. Abusive images and videos proliferate online, for example. This is a relatively new challenge, but it is real and it is omnipresent. This legislation will empower victims of this type of abuse to remove the content from the internet by using copyright takedown authority. It also establishes an innovation fund for the Office on Violence Against Women to address emerging trends so victims can get the support they need as quickly as possible. If you compare this legislation to the bill passing the House and introduced by our Democratic colleagues here, there is no question that our version does more to support survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. It provides more funding over a longer period of time, and it targets despicable crimes that are being committed across the country that aren't even covered by the House bill. Let me just close by thanking our friend from Iowa for continuing to fight for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault and for leading the effort to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. It is a bill that never should have lapsed, despite two attempts to continue it that our Democratic colleagues objected to. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and look forward to working with all of our colleagues to advance it. I hope our colleagues will return to the negotiation table and work with us so we can send a long-term reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act to the President's desk for his signature.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, history has taught us that the closer you get to election day, the harder it gets to pass legislation here in the Congress. It is hard, anyway, by design. You have to pass a bill through committees in the House and in the Senate. Both bodies have to pass a bill if they are different. They have to reconcile those in a conference committee. Then, you have to negotiate with the White House in order to get the President's signature. So, by design, it is hard to pass legislation, but it shouldn't be this hard. With less than a year to go before the 2020 election, we are racing against the clock. We started this year with bipartisan ambitions to address healthcare costs, to bolster international trade, and to get the appropriations process back on track and avoid unnecessary government shutdowns. Yet, somewhere along the way, politics hijacked the process. Our colleagues across the aisle decided that no matter how critical legislation may be, foiling President Trump was even more important. They are so outraged by the President and so consumed by his every word and every tweet that they have brought the work of this body to a screeching halt in an effort to remove him from office less than a year before the next general election. It seems they have no desire whatsoever to pass legislation that would benefit the American people, let alone any urgency to get things moving. The only thing our Democratic colleagues seem to care about is stopping the President from getting anything that could be construed as a win. Over in the House, the Democrats have put legislating on the back burner and are spending their days trying to nullify the results of the 2016 election. They are slow-walking negotiations on the National Defense Authorization Act, which has passed every year without fail since 1961. Their negotiations with the administration over the USMCA-- that is the successor to NAFTA, which helped to benefit the employment of roughly 13 million Americans--have kept farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers in limbo for months. Along with the necessary funding to help to make up for the lack of funds in the highway trust fund, they have also complicated efforts to get a long-term highway bill reauthorization passed. Despite the partisan frenzy in the House, I have always believed the Senate should do its best to stay above the fray, but the minority leader has proven me wrong. In fact, last week, I came to the floor to ask unanimous consent to pass a bill that Senator Richard Blumenthal, of Connecticut, a Democrat, and I, a Republican, introduced together. Incredibly, this bill passed unanimously out of the Committee on the Judiciary. Our legislation is designed to do what all here in Washington say they want to do, which is to reduce drug prices--in this case, by stopping drug makers from gaming the patent system. Our bill strikes a delicate balance of protecting innovation, which is very, very important--we must not lose sight of that--while it increases competition, and you know competition helps to bring down prices. As an added bonus, it would lower Federal spending by more than a half a billion dollars over 10 years. That is not even talking about what it would do in the nongovernmental sector for savings. Senator Blumenthal and I have done what you are expected to do here in a legislative body, which is to work hard to build consensus and come up with a bill that could gain bipartisan support. By any measure, we have succeeded in doing that, as it has a dozen bipartisan cosponsors. As I mentioned, when this legislation was reviewed by the Committee on the Judiciary--a committee that, notably, can be pretty contentious at times--the committee passed it unanimously. Every Republican and every Democrat voted for it. I had hoped that would have been some indication that this bill would have quickly passed the full Senate when brought to the Senate floor. Apparently, the minority leader, the Senator from New York, had other plans in mind, because when I, along with Senator Blumenthal, came to the floor last week to try to get this legislation passed, he objected--hence, the Schumer graveyard. On November 18, 2019, when referring to S. 1416, regarding the lowering of drug prices, Senator Schumer said: ``Democrats are happy and eager to work on those issues.'' One thing I have learned around here is that it is not just what people say but what they do that counts, and he objected to this virtually unanimously supported bill, on a bipartisan basis, to lower drug prices. He actually called it a good bill. He said it was well- intentioned, but he said there were other ideas that had to be included before he would lift his objection. So he doesn't have any objection to our bill. He understands it is a good bill but that it may not be as comprehensive as he would like. Another thing I have learned in my time in the Senate is that if you demand everything and are not willing to compromise, you are going to end up with nothing. Apparently, that is what the Democratic leader is happy with, including for his constituents in New York, by the way, who will have to pay more money out-of-pocket as a result of his objection to this commonsense bill. I would hope that he would talk to his own Members who have cosponsored this bill. Most notably, the Democratic whip, Senator Durbin, of Illinois, has cosponsored the bill as well as Senator Murray, of Washington, who is the ranking member on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. They are both cosponsors of this bill that the Democratic leader objected to. While all Senators have said they want to address rising drug prices, Senator Schumer has the distinction of being the only Senator to have actually blocked a bill that would do exactly that. Why would he do that? He claims--I think, mistakenly so--that passing my bill would somehow render the Senate incapable of passing any other drug pricing legislation. That is, obviously, ridiculous and untrue. I happen to sit not only on the Committee on the Judiciary but on the Committee on Finance. There is a significant bipartisan Committee on Finance bill, together with the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee's bill, that has been produced by Senator Alexander and Senator Murray. Both of those contain many good ideas. I wish we had the time and the bandwidth to debate and vote on those on the Senate floor and in the House. But for the fact that our House colleagues are so obsessed with impeachment and seem incapable of doing anything else, I think we could do that. Of course, even though the Democratic leader himself is the reason this bill did not pass last week, it hasn't stopped him from complaining about the lack of progress on other legislation. Yesterday evening, for example, he came to the floor and said: ``Democrats are happy and eager to work on those issues.'' I would suggest, when he says they ``are happy and eager to work on those issues,'' that it is just happy talk, not our actually rolling up our sleeves and working together to get the work of the American people done, which is the reason I thought we were here. The Democratic leader went on to say that the Senate Democrats are waiting with bated breath for the Republican leader to put any of these bills on the floor and for any Republican to speak out and demand they go on the floor. Yet, when I asked for this bill to be passed on the floor, it was not a Republican who blocked it. It was the same person who said he would be happy and eager to work on those issues. Again, what people say in Washington, DC, is not what they actually do sometimes. I suggest it is important to see what people do, not just listen to what they say. Sadly, this isn't the only time the Democratic leader has blocked progress on bipartisan priorities. It is just the latest. Here are some other tombstones in the Schumer graveyard. Over the summer, our colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations had the foresight to prepare for the funding fight that we expected this fall. That was a normal part of the process. They negotiated a spending caps agreement to make the appropriations process much more straightforward in both Chambers of Congress, and the House and the Senate approved the terms. We agreed to that top-line funding level both for defense and nondefense spending. There was also a promise not to derail the process with poison pills in the form of policy riders. We got all of it done with plenty of time to spare. After we voted on that, there was reason for hope and optimism in that, somehow, we had made it much easier for us to do the Nation's business when it had come to the spending bills. While there was still a lot of work to do, we thought this put us on a strong footing to get funding bills passed before the end of the fiscal year. Yet here we are today, on November 19--a long time from those votes in August--and we still don't have those spending bills passed. Our Democratic colleagues have, on two instances, actually objected to even debating the Defense appropriations bill, which provides a pay raise for our troops. They will not even talk about it. They will not offer amendments. They just blocked it. They just stopped it dead in its tracks. You would have thought everybody would have learned not to play politics with the appropriations bills. Our Democratic colleagues have held up government funding due to a disagreement that is equal to about 0.3 percent of the discretionary spending budget, and they are trying to reopen the very budget agreement that they agreed to last summer that has become law. They blocked vital education funding, which would have provided more than $71 billion to the Department of Education. This spending bill would bolster a number of the grant programs that our students and our schools rely on, and it would promote college access and affordability to help more prospective college students. That same funding bill would have invested nearly $4 billion in our fight against the opioid epidemic, supported workforce training programs, and strengthened our nationwide mental health system. Could the majority leader put aside politics just long enough to let this funding bill, which would do so much good, pass? Well, apparently not. If you think that is bad, it just gets worse. Our most fundamental responsibility in Congress is to provide for the common defense. Before we can worry about anything else, we need the safety and security that our military provides to fight, if necessary, our Nation's wars and to defend our democracy. Actually, the strength of our military is directly related to our ability to live in peace because when our adversaries see us as tentative or weak or withdrawing or unwilling to fund our military training and readiness, they view that as a sign of weakness, which itself can be a provocation, which, again, ignores our most basic job as Members of the Congress. There have always been disagreements about exact dollar figures; we are not talking about that. But the top-line figures were agreed upon last summer, so I thought we were ready to fund our military on time. Well, shame on me for being an optimist or at least optimistic enough to believe that people would keep their commitments, keep their word, and we would somehow head down this path to funding the U.S. Government. Here we are, with one continuing resolution expiring in 3 days' time. I believe the House will vote on an additional continuing resolution that will take us to December 20, and then the Senate will have to do that just to keep the lights on here in Washington, DC--just to make sure that government actually functions. None of this is necessary, and all of it is directly related to hyperpartisan conflict, which we all understand, but it simply is getting in the way of our ability to do our business. The one that strikes me as the most indefensible, beyond the prescription drug objection, is blocking funding for our troops. We depend on an all-volunteer military, and obviously many of our military members are not just single; they have families who depend on them and on the funding that Congress provides. But our colleagues blocked it two different times--again, voting against the motion to proceed to the bill which, in plain English, is just saying that they didn't even want to start talking about or amending the underlying bill, which each Senator would have the opportunity to do if they would allow us to begin that process, which they blocked. Well, the Democratic leader loves to talk about the legislative graveyard here in the Senate. What he really means is that he wants to control the agenda, even in his seat as the minority leader. Well, he knows the rules of the Senate don't permit the minority to control the agenda. That is why it is so important that Senator McConnell is where he is and that Republicans have a majority. We are not saying that you have to do it our way or the highway. We are saying: Let's engage in the legislative process. Let's take up legislation on the floor of the Senate and let Senators offer their amendments, their suggestions, and then let's vote on them. But let's not just stop things dead in their tracks because of partisan politics or because somebody doesn't want somebody who happens to be on the ballot in 2020 to get a ``win.'' That is really beneath the dignity of the Senate or any Senator. It is less than what the American people have a right to expect of us. I would ask the Democratic leader again: Please don't head down this path by creating a graveyard of your own for bipartisan legislation that could and should become law. It is not my way or the highway. We have to work on this together, and we are willing to do our part. Let's work on bills that strengthen our military, lower drug prices, help students, assist in the fight against the opioid crisis, and so much, much more. I think it is a shame that our Democratic colleagues seem to be unable to compartmentalize their feelings about the President from the urgent need for them to do the jobs they were elected to do here in the Congress. They have been given countless opportunities to engage with us on a bipartisan basis to pass meaningful legislation that would make the American people's lives better. Again, that is why I think we are here, but they refuse to do anything that could be construed as giving somebody a victory because of political considerations. While Senator Schumer continues to kill bipartisan bill after bipartisan bill-- really, because of it--the work of this Congress has become paralyzed. We are not going to give up, though. We will keep fighting to ensure that the American people are not the ultimate victims of our Democratic colleagues' war against this President--again, less than a year before the election. Why can't they channel all of their anger, all of their energy into the election rather than invoking the impeachment process? This would be the fourth time that has been initiated in American history, and it has never been successful in getting a Senate conviction and a removal of any President in American history. Our Democratic colleagues know they are likely headed to the same conclusion here, but they nonetheless want to occupy all of our time and all of our attention on something that they know, ultimately, will likely be futile, will be unsuccessful, and in the meantime leave the American people on the sideline and not care or do anything that would help make their lives just a little bit easier and our country just a little bit stronger. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, for months, the world has watched as the brave citizens of Hong Kong have sustained protests against China's decades-long degradation of their civil liberties. The U.N. High Commissioner has found credible evidence of the Hong Kong Police Force using nonlethal crowd-control weapons in ways that violate international norms and standards. That is why I am proud to support the bipartisan PROTECT Hong Kong Act, as described by our colleague Senator Merkley. The PROTECT Hong Kong Act would direct the President to ban the issuance of licenses for commercial export of riot-control weapons like tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, stun guns, and tasers to the Hong Kong Police Force. This ensures that the Hong Kong pro-democracy protesters are not subjected to police brutality using products made in the United States of America. I am also proud to support the just- passed Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. I think the statement being made by the passage of these two pieces of legislation and the presence today of so many of our colleagues on a bipartisan basis standing with the people of Hong Kong against this oppression by their Communist overlords is very, very significant. Now more than ever, the United States must send a clear message to China that the free world stands with Hongkongers in their struggle. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have request for one committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is 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, November 19, 2019, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing on pending nominations.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions, which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 430, S. Res. 431, S. Res. 432, S. Res. 433, and S. Res. 434.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, that the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table all en bloc.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4258, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the postcloture time on the Lagoa nomination be considered expired at 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday, November 20. I further ask that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Wednesday, November 20; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Lagoa nomination under the previous order.

Mr. CORNYN

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