John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, briefly on another matter, we are just a couple of months away from the 2-year anniversary of the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Because of this legislation, families across the country are benefiting from lower income tax rates and are able to keep more of what they earn. We have also helped families by doubling the standard deduction for children, expanding the child tax credit, and simplifying the Tax Code, which is something I think we can all agree needs to be done. For the millions of Texans who were filled with dread simply about filing their taxes, it was a welcomed relief. The journey to pass the legislation wasn't easy, of course, and there was no shortage--there never are--of naysayers. Many of our Senate Democratic colleagues claimed this legislation only benefited the rich, the evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. We know that is false because of what the facts tell us. Let me go back for a second and explain why this congressional resolution of disapproval we will be voting on at about 3 o'clock is so ironic and so mistaken. Prior to tax reform, without limit, taxpayers could itemize their deductions for State and local taxes. They got to deduct that from their Federal income taxes, which meant, in essence, in those high-tax jurisdictions--the cities and the States that had high local and State taxes--taxpayers from around the country were subsidizing those taxpayers in those high-tax jurisdictions. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act attempted to deal with this unfairness by capping this deduction, better known now as the SALT deduction--the State and local tax deduction--at $10,000 for everybody across the country. Everybody was treated the same. Everybody was put on a level playing field. In other words, tax reform stopped the endless subsidy that taxpayers who were living in my State gave to fiscal decisions that were made by other States and local governments. There is no reason we should ask a taxpayer who is living in Austin to subsidize the financial decisions, the fiscal decisions, made in Albany, in Sacramento, or in any other State capitol. Before the cap, the wealthiest Americans were disproportionately reaping the benefit of this no-limit deduction. That is why the cap was included in tax reform--in order to support the middle class, not the top 1 percent. In the process, we prevented the richest people in the country from gaming the Tax Code. This chart, which was produced by the Senate Committee on Finance, courtesy of Chairman Grassley, talks about who benefits from the SALT cap repeal. This is what we will be voting on indirectly this afternoon. Here, 52 percent of the benefit goes to taxpayers with incomes of over $1 million. Our Democratic friends like to say they are the party of the working man and woman, but clearly they are working on behalf of the 52 percent of taxpayers who have incomes of over $1 million in their seeking to repeal this regulation that basically prevents a tax dodge. There are 24 percent of taxpayers with incomes between $200,000 and $1 million who will be affected and 6 percent of taxpayers who will be affected who earn under $200,000. You can see that the majority of the benefit that our Democratic colleagues seek to confer is on the wealthiest people in the country. I don't have any ax to grind with people who have been successful and who have made a lot of money. They pay their taxes, contribute their philanthropy, and help in innumerable ways. This is simply a way to try to make sure our taxpayers in Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming don't subsidize the high tax rates in New York, Los Angeles, or other places that have high State and local taxes. In good conscience, we cannot let that happen. The fact is, since tax reform passed, a number of States have crafted a workaround--I call it a tax dodge--to circumvent this $10,000 limit. In June, the Treasury issued a regulation to stop them--this is the tax dodge--and required States to adhere to the limit that Congress passed into law and that the President signed. The financial consequences of what the Democratic Members of the Senate are trying to do here are enormous. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that doing away with the subsidy cap would cost about $700 billion over the next 7 years, or $100 billion a year, and almost 95 percent of the benefit would go to the people who make more than $200,000. Even according to the liberal Tax Policy Center, one- third of the uncapped SALT deduction went to the top 1 percent. If I have heard Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or any of the Democrats who are running for President rail on and on about the top 1 percent and income inequality once, I have heard it a thousand times. Yet here they seek to undo a cap that treats every taxpayer the same and essentially require taxpayers who are in low-tax States to subsidize those who are in high-tax States and localities. And 52 percent of them make over $1 million a year. A millionaire would receive a tax cut of nearly $60,000--higher than the household incomes of many people who live in my State. That is what we will be voting on. That is what the Democratic leader from New York--a high-tax State and city--seeks to do for his constituents, but it is to the detriment of hard-working families in my State and in many States around the country. After continually hammering the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it is actually duplicitous to argue that it somehow benefits the wealthy when there was just the most modest of cuts in the highest marginal rate. The benefit flowed to everybody in every tax bracket, but most of it went to the middle class. Yet, after hammering this side of the aisle for its somehow benefiting the wealthy to the detriment of the middle class, the Democrats are now working to help their richest constituents get back to the days of unlimited deductions. This is unfair. It is regressive. It benefits the people who need the help the least, and it hurts the people who need our attention and help the most. Asking Texans and all Americans to somehow foot the bill for $700 billion so that the folks who live in these high-tax cities and States can get a $60,000 tax cut is something I am simply unwilling to participate in. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this resolution of disapproval. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, 2 months ago, Texans were mourning the loss of 22 of our people killed in a senseless attack in El Paso, TX. Little did we know that we were just days away from another violent attack, this time in Midland and Odessa, which took seven lives. Visiting these communities in the wake of these tragedies is tough-- something I have, unfortunately, had experience with following the 2017 shooting in Sutherland Springs and, again, in 2018 in Santa Fe High School. There are no words to bring comfort to the families and the friends and the community members who were shaken to their very core by these sudden and unwarranted acts of violence. But as I visited with the families and offered my condolences following each of these attacks, there was one common refrain, one common request: Please do something. Now, if I knew of a way to introduce and pass legislation that could stop these types of criminal acts from occurring, I guarantee we could pass it with 100 percent of the Senate and 435 Members of the House, and the President would sign it. But that, unfortunately, is not the human condition. Unfortunately, there is no quick fix, no simple answer. Instead, we are left to look at the factors that led to these attacks and to try to do something to prevent the sequence of events from playing out again in the future. Following the shooting in Sutherland Springs, we quickly learned some disturbing facts about the shooter and how he obtained his weapons. He had a history of violence and a criminal conviction that should have prevented him from ever purchasing a firearm. But this information was never uploaded into the background check system run by the FBI. As a result, the shooter was able to purchase four firearms, three of which were used in the attack. He shouldn't have been able to do that. Every time something like this happens, it is only natural to say: What if? What if those convictions had been uploaded? What if he wasn't able to purchase those firearms? Could we have stopped this terrible loss of life? My goal then, as it is now, is to do everything I can to make sure those questions don't have to be asked again. Ten days after the Sutherland Springs shooting, I introduced a piece of legislation called Fix NICS--Fix the National Instant Criminal Background Check System--to fill the gaps in our background check system and ensure that government agencies submit relevant evidence. We worked hard on it over a long period of time, and it passed with more than 70 Senate bipartisan cosponsors. What is the result of the Fix NICS bill we passed in the wake of Sutherland Springs? We now know that the Federal Government has increased its record submissions to the background check system by 400 percent--a 400-percent increase in the background check system. That means if somebody is dishonorably discharged from the military, if somebody has been convicted of domestic violence, violated a protective order, or convicted of any felony, the background check system is much more likely to have that derogatory information in it, and the seller will not sell that firearm. Because of this legislation, our Federal background databases are becoming stronger and better by the day and preventing more criminals from getting their hands on deadly weapons that are already prohibited by existing law. But it is time once again to revisit the way we might reduce the loss of life, the way we might be able to reduce these mass violence episodes from occurring in our country in the future. Today, I am introducing the Restoring, Enhancing, Strengthening, and Promoting Our Nation's Safety Efforts--or the RESPONSE Act, as we call it. Just as Fix NICS did, this bill addresses specific problems to try to prevent attacks and make our communities safer. First, this legislation takes aim at unlicensed firearms dealers who are breaking the existing law. Shortly after the Midland-Odessa shooting, we learned that the shooter failed a background check when he attempted to buy a gun from a licensed dealer. He then managed to circumvent the process by purchasing his weapon from somebody who appears to have been in the business of manufacturing and selling guns but who is not a registered firearms dealer. By not registering as a dealer, the seller was able to skirt the legal requirement and sell a weapon to the shooter without conducting the necessary background check. So to prevent unlicensed dealers from continuing to break the law, the RESPONSE Act creates a nationwide task force to investigate and prosecute those individuals. The task force will focus on those who are illegally selling firearms, as well as those attempting to buy firearms who provide false statements as part of the background check. While preventing unlicensed dealers from selling weapons without appropriate background checks is an important way to reduce violence, it is only one factor. I think we have to admit there isn't one single solution. It is multifactorial. There are multiple things we can and should do. The second major piece of this legislation improves the quality and availability of mental health care. I asked the Odessa police chief following the shooting in Midland-Odessa: What is it you think we might have been able to do? He said: Well, we need better access to mental health diagnoses and treatment. We clearly need to do more to identify and support struggling individuals who could pose a danger to themselves and to others. We know for a fact that the majority of gun deaths are suicides, self- inflicted. While mental illness is not the prevailing cause of mass violence, enhanced mental health resources, I believe, are critical to saving lives. The RESPONSE Act includes a range of measures, such as expanding mental health crisis intervention teams, improving coordination between mental health providers and law enforcement, and bolstering the mental health workforce. Importantly, this bill expands something called assisted outpatient treatment programs, or AOTs. This is something we passed as part of the 21st Century Cures Act, my Mental Health and Safe Communities Act to help focus on, as a priority, pilot projects of these assisted outpatient treatment programs. Here we seek to expand them further based on the proven success. AOTs, or assisted outpatient treatment, provide families of individuals with mental illness an opportunity to get treatment for their loved one in their community rather than in an institution. Making mental health resources more accessible will serve our most vulnerable friends and neighbors in countless ways and, I believe, make our communities safer. Third, the RESPONSE Act seeks to increase the safety of our students. I have heard from countless parents--no doubt, the Presiding Officer has too--that parents literally are in fear of sending their children to school, not knowing whether they may be victimized by one of these senseless attacks, especially in the aftermath of Santa Fe and Parkland High School. Parents are rightfully concerned about sending their kids to school, and they should not have to live with that. The RESPONSE Act includes provisions to help identify students whose behavior indicates a threat of violence and then provide the student with the appropriate services they may need not to be a danger to themselves or others. By promoting best practices within our schools, as well as internet safety policies, we can help protect both students and school faculty and provide parents with a little peace of mind. Finally, because so often these shooters advertise on social media or cry out for attention to law enforcement or other people ahead of time, this legislation includes provisions to ensure law enforcement can receive timely information about potential threats made online. Online providers and platforms have the ability to share information with law enforcement today during emergencies. And in the fight against child abuse, the RESPONSE Act would expand the scope of information they can share to include information about potential acts of mass violence or self-harm or hate crimes or acts of domestic terrorism. The RESPONSE Act has been endorsed already by a number of law enforcement and mental health organizations, including the National Council for Behavioral Health, National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National District Attorneys Association, Fraternal Order of Police, and a number of others. I am glad to say it also has received support already--even though we are only introducing it today--from a number of our colleagues here: Senators McSally, Tillis, Ernst, Capito, and Senator Tim Scott. I hope we can work together to build a big bipartisan list of cosponsors as other Senators have the opportunity to review this legislation--again, using the Fix NICS bill as a model of how we can build consensus and get something done that will save lives. There is no quick fix, as I said, but there are commonsense measures we can take to reduce mass violence and protect the American people. As Texans continue to grieve in the aftermath of these attacks, I am committed to upholding my promise that I made to their families and friends to do something--to do what we can to prevent more communities from facing this sort of heartbreak.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, 2 months ago, Texans were mourning the loss of 22 of our people killed in a senseless attack in El Paso, TX. Little did we know that we were just days away from another violent attack, this time in Midland and Odessa, which took seven lives. Visiting these communities in the wake of these tragedies is tough-- something I have, unfortunately, had experience with following the 2017 shooting in Sutherland Springs and, again, in 2018 in Santa Fe High School. There are no words to bring comfort to the families and the friends and the community members who were shaken to their very core by these sudden and unwarranted acts of violence. But as I visited with the families and offered my condolences following each of these attacks, there was one common refrain, one common request: Please do something. Now, if I knew of a way to introduce and pass legislation that could stop these types of criminal acts from occurring, I guarantee we could pass it with 100 percent of the Senate and 435 Members of the House, and the President would sign it. But that, unfortunately, is not the human condition. Unfortunately, there is no quick fix, no simple answer. Instead, we are left to look at the factors that led to these attacks and to try to do something to prevent the sequence of events from playing out again in the future. Following the shooting in Sutherland Springs, we quickly learned some disturbing facts about the shooter and how he obtained his weapons. He had a history of violence and a criminal conviction that should have prevented him from ever purchasing a firearm. But this information was never uploaded into the background check system run by the FBI. As a result, the shooter was able to purchase four firearms, three of which were used in the attack. He shouldn't have been able to do that. Every time something like this happens, it is only natural to say: What if? What if those convictions had been uploaded? What if he wasn't able to purchase those firearms? Could we have stopped this terrible loss of life? My goal then, as it is now, is to do everything I can to make sure those questions don't have to be asked again. Ten days after the Sutherland Springs shooting, I introduced a piece of legislation called Fix NICS--Fix the National Instant Criminal Background Check System--to fill the gaps in our background check system and ensure that government agencies submit relevant evidence. We worked hard on it over a long period of time, and it passed with more than 70 Senate bipartisan cosponsors. What is the result of the Fix NICS bill we passed in the wake of Sutherland Springs? We now know that the Federal Government has increased its record submissions to the background check system by 400 percent--a 400-percent increase in the background check system. That means if somebody is dishonorably discharged from the military, if somebody has been convicted of domestic violence, violated a protective order, or convicted of any felony, the background check system is much more likely to have that derogatory information in it, and the seller will not sell that firearm. Because of this legislation, our Federal background databases are becoming stronger and better by the day and preventing more criminals from getting their hands on deadly weapons that are already prohibited by existing law. But it is time once again to revisit the way we might reduce the loss of life, the way we might be able to reduce these mass violence episodes from occurring in our country in the future. Today, I am introducing the Restoring, Enhancing, Strengthening, and Promoting Our Nation's Safety Efforts--or the RESPONSE Act, as we call it. Just as Fix NICS did, this bill addresses specific problems to try to prevent attacks and make our communities safer. First, this legislation takes aim at unlicensed firearms dealers who are breaking the existing law. Shortly after the Midland-Odessa shooting, we learned that the shooter failed a background check when he attempted to buy a gun from a licensed dealer. He then managed to circumvent the process by purchasing his weapon from somebody who appears to have been in the business of manufacturing and selling guns but who is not a registered firearms dealer. By not registering as a dealer, the seller was able to skirt the legal requirement and sell a weapon to the shooter without conducting the necessary background check. So to prevent unlicensed dealers from continuing to break the law, the RESPONSE Act creates a nationwide task force to investigate and prosecute those individuals. The task force will focus on those who are illegally selling firearms, as well as those attempting to buy firearms who provide false statements as part of the background check. While preventing unlicensed dealers from selling weapons without appropriate background checks is an important way to reduce violence, it is only one factor. I think we have to admit there isn't one single solution. It is multifactorial. There are multiple things we can and should do. The second major piece of this legislation improves the quality and availability of mental health care. I asked the Odessa police chief following the shooting in Midland-Odessa: What is it you think we might have been able to do? He said: Well, we need better access to mental health diagnoses and treatment. We clearly need to do more to identify and support struggling individuals who could pose a danger to themselves and to others. We know for a fact that the majority of gun deaths are suicides, self- inflicted. While mental illness is not the prevailing cause of mass violence, enhanced mental health resources, I believe, are critical to saving lives. The RESPONSE Act includes a range of measures, such as expanding mental health crisis intervention teams, improving coordination between mental health providers and law enforcement, and bolstering the mental health workforce. Importantly, this bill expands something called assisted outpatient treatment programs, or AOTs. This is something we passed as part of the 21st Century Cures Act, my Mental Health and Safe Communities Act to help focus on, as a priority, pilot projects of these assisted outpatient treatment programs. Here we seek to expand them further based on the proven success. AOTs, or assisted outpatient treatment, provide families of individuals with mental illness an opportunity to get treatment for their loved one in their community rather than in an institution. Making mental health resources more accessible will serve our most vulnerable friends and neighbors in countless ways and, I believe, make our communities safer. Third, the RESPONSE Act seeks to increase the safety of our students. I have heard from countless parents--no doubt, the Presiding Officer has too--that parents literally are in fear of sending their children to school, not knowing whether they may be victimized by one of these senseless attacks, especially in the aftermath of Santa Fe and Parkland High School. Parents are rightfully concerned about sending their kids to school, and they should not have to live with that. The RESPONSE Act includes provisions to help identify students whose behavior indicates a threat of violence and then provide the student with the appropriate services they may need not to be a danger to themselves or others. By promoting best practices within our schools, as well as internet safety policies, we can help protect both students and school faculty and provide parents with a little peace of mind. Finally, because so often these shooters advertise on social media or cry out for attention to law enforcement or other people ahead of time, this legislation includes provisions to ensure law enforcement can receive timely information about potential threats made online. Online providers and platforms have the ability to share information with law enforcement today during emergencies. And in the fight against child abuse, the RESPONSE Act would expand the scope of information they can share to include information about potential acts of mass violence or self-harm or hate crimes or acts of domestic terrorism. The RESPONSE Act has been endorsed already by a number of law enforcement and mental health organizations, including the National Council for Behavioral Health, National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National District Attorneys Association, Fraternal Order of Police, and a number of others. I am glad to say it also has received support already--even though we are only introducing it today--from a number of our colleagues here: Senators McSally, Tillis, Ernst, Capito, and Senator Tim Scott. I hope we can work together to build a big bipartisan list of cosponsors as other Senators have the opportunity to review this legislation--again, using the Fix NICS bill as a model of how we can build consensus and get something done that will save lives. There is no quick fix, as I said, but there are commonsense measures we can take to reduce mass violence and protect the American people. As Texans continue to grieve in the aftermath of these attacks, I am committed to upholding my promise that I made to their families and friends to do something--to do what we can to prevent more communities from facing this sort of heartbreak.

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 Congress, I have the great honor of cochairing the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics with my friend and colleague from California, Senator Feinstein. As our country continues to battle the scourge of the opioid epidemic, fight drug trafficking at our borders, and attack illicit drug sources abroad, the work of this caucus could not be more timely or more important. We must do more, I believe, to treat addiction, and we need to do more to stop Americans from using illegal drugs in the first instance. Earlier this year, we had a hearing to examine the global narcotics epidemic--and it is a global one--and discuss our country's counternarcotics strategy. At this first hearing, we were lucky to have the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, as a witness. He spoke in depth about the scope of this problem and how the State Department is working with our friends and allies abroad to curb the supply of these illicit drugs. We learned a lot from Secretary Pompeo and our other expert witnesses about the complexity of this problem and a need for a whole- of-government approach. It was a strong way to kick off our agenda. I am looking forward to our second hearing tomorrow, which I will talk about briefly, where we will have experts testifying on the public health effects of the most commonly used illicit drug--marijuana. A 2018 report found that an estimated 43.5 million Americans used marijuana in the last year. That is the highest percentage since 2002. While marijuana is still a prohibited drug under Federal law, we know that more than half of the States have legalized it in some form, making the rise in usage not all that surprising. Now, there is no shortage of people who claim that marijuana has endless health benefits and can help patients struggling with everything from epilepsy to anxiety to cancer treatments. This reminds me of some of the advertising we saw from the tobacco industry years ago where they actually claimed public health benefits from smoking tobacco, which we know, as a matter of fact, were false and that tobacco contains nicotine, an addictive drug, and is implicated with cancers of different kinds. We are hearing a lot of the same happy talk with regard to marijuana and none of the facts that we need to understand about the public health impact of marijuana use. We have heard from folks here in Congress, as well as a number of our Democratic colleagues who are running for President, about their desire to legalize marijuana at the Federal level. But for the number of voices in support of legalization, there are even more unanswered questions about both the short-term and long-term public health effects. Between 1995 and 2014, THC concentration--that is the active ingredient in marijuana--has increased threefold, making today's version of the drug far stronger and more addictive than ever before. It is true that for some people marijuana can indeed be addictive. There has been an effort throughout the medical and scientific communities to learn more about the public health effects of marijuana use, but the results of these studies haven't provided any definitive evidence. I must say that among all the discussion at the State and Federal level about marijuana use and its benefits and its hazards, Congress really hasn't had an opportunity to soberly and deliberately consider this question, which, hopefully, we will be enlightened about tomorrow, about what the public health benefits are of this trend in our country. A few years ago, the National Academy of Sciences convened an expert committee to review the health effects of cannabis and cannabis-derived products. The committee members were experts in the fields of marijuana and addiction, as well as pediatric and adolescent health, neurodevelopment, public health, and a range of other areas. Their findings were released in January of 2017, and while I will not read you the entire 468-page document, I will tell you that it raised more questions than it provided answers. For many of the claimed medicinal uses of marijuana, the committee found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude its effectiveness, which is a pretty basic question. The benefits aren't the only thing clouded in mystery--so are the risks. There is simply a lack of scientific evidence to determine the link between marijuana and various health risks. That is something, I would think, Congress and the American people would want to know before we proceed further down this path. This is especially concerning when it comes to marijuana's youngest users and the impact, for example, on the adolescent brain as it develops. We don't know enough about how this could impair cognitive function or capacity or increase the risk of mental illness or perhaps serve as a gateway for other drugs that are even more damaging to the health of a young person. With increasing use and a growing number of States giving the green light for marijuana use, we need better answers. At our hearing tomorrow, I am eager to dive into this subject and learn more from our witnesses to help us fill the knowledge gaps that exist when it comes to this subject. We are honored to have Surgeon General Jerome Adams among our distinguished witnesses. Surgeon General Adams has raised concerns in the past about the increasing use of recreational marijuana among adolescents and its impact on the development of cognitive functions in a growing and developing brain. We will also hear from Nora Volkow, who is the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Our second panel includes experts in the fields of psychiatry, psychology, pathology, and epidemiology. So we will get a holistic look at the potential health implications. There is simply too much we don't know about the risks and the claimed benefits of marijuana use, and I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses tomorrow to get a better sense of the facts as Congress contemplates future legislation. I appreciate the bipartisan commitment of my colleagues on the committee, particularly the cochair of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control, Senator Feinstein, so that we can get to the bottom of the risks and benefits associated with marijuana use, and I believe tomorrow it will get us moving in the right direction. 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. President, just when you think things couldn't get any stranger here in Washington, DC, a few weeks ago, Speaker Pelosi announced that the House was officially beginning proceedings to impeach the President of the United States. While the left has been dreaming of impeachment ever since the President was first elected in 2016, the timing of this was quite a surprise. In fact, last January the Speaker led the effort to table an impeachment resolution, and she and Chairman Nadler and Chairman Schiff and other House leaders had said that they recognized that this would never be successful unless it is bipartisan, and I think they were right then and they are wrong now. We know that the announcement of the Speaker came at a time when the only thing the public knew was about rumors of a whistleblower complaint about a call over which virtually no one knew any details. But the facts didn't really matter. This was about grabbing ahold of something and using this as a vehicle to do what the left has wanted to do since the President was inaugurated. Were the initial reports a reason to look into the matter further? Absolutely. That is what the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that I have the privilege of serving on did. We had the Acting Director of National Intelligence come testify. We had the inspector general come testify about his report. But that is not the approach that House Democrats have taken. They made no honest effort to investigate before deciding to impeach. Prior to the Speaker's press conference, in fact, we hadn't seen the complaint. We hadn't seen the transcript or heard from the leaders of the intelligence community. But regardless of the lack of any evidence at the time, they jumped into impeachment feet first. It is almost as if they were waiting for anything--any excuse, any reason at all--to do what they have wanted to do since day one in opposing President Trump. This confirms to me that this is really not about the facts so much as it is a search-and-destroy mission. Removing a President from office is no small matter. In fact, the Senate has never done so in American history. You would think that with so much at stake, our House Democrat friends would make every effort to lay out a careful, logical, fact-based case for the American people. In fact, they said they knew they couldn't be successful unless this was a bipartisan effort, but they made zero effort to make it bipartisan by laying out the facts, by making it transparent, by letting the American people see exactly what was going on. Ordinarily, you would expect hearings on every major network, witnesses presenting their testimony, subject to questioning by both Republicans and Democrats, and detailed reports of investigations. That is what you would expect, but that is not what we got. Instead, we got secret hearings, secret witnesses, secret interviews, and secret meetings. But you know what goes along with that kind of secrecy--leaks and more leaks. Chairman Schiff and his cohorts in the House have drawn the cloak of secrecy around this entire proceeding and then proceeded to drip, drip, drip a narrative to the press through leaks that would seem to justify their arguments, but that is not fair. That is not fair to the President. That is not fair to the 65 million American people who voted for President Trump. To try to negate an election through this sort of inappropriate process just defies logic and sense. We have some idea of whom they are meeting with, but we have no idea as to the details they are talking about. That is because, instead of going through the Judiciary Committee, which would have been an open proceeding, ordinarily, Speaker Pelosi has grabbed this topic from Chairman Nadler and given it to Chairman Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, so as to have some sort of justification, as thin as it may seem, for doing things behind closed doors and in secret. As I said, I am on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I understand that if there is classified information that can't be made public, that is a reason to have closed-door hearings, but there should be some effort to separate the classified information, if there is any, from the nonclassified information and have a public hearing on that part of the information the committee is given, not just closing the door, locking it, and throwing away the key, and keeping it all secret. This is really unjustified. Well, we know that they have been busy. Chairman Schiff has been busy. We know he has been particularly busy on the TV talk shows and giving interviews to the media all day long, every day, and we know that there are bits of information being strategically leaked to the media, which conveniently align with their overall plan, and that is impeachment. There have been no real and credible details about what has happened behind those closed-door meetings, and I would suggest that every American should be concerned. This is entirely contrary to our basic concepts of fairness and due process--to have secret witnesses, secret interviews, secret hearings, and then use that information to take one of the most dramatic actions that the Constitution provides for, and that is the removal of a President. This is contrary to any concept of fair play and due process, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. You could be charged with a traffic offense and get more transparency and more due process than what the House Democrats are providing to President Trump, because that is what the Constitution requires. Because the Speaker made a decision to impeach President Trump based at the time solely on rumors and secondhand information, I am left with very little optimism for the way this impeachment inquiry so far has been handled. Now, there have been some silly hearings in the House of Representatives this year, but the American people should have the benefit of being able to watch these proceedings and draw their own conclusions. They don't have to believe what the press tells them based on strategic leaks. They don't have to believe what Chairman Schiff and Speaker Pelosi say. They can judge the facts for themselves. When it comes to impeachment, arguably one of the most serious responsibilities under our Constitution for Congress, House Democrats have simply drawn the cloak of secrecy around their investigation. Of course, you know what the logical questions are to this sort of bizarre proceeding--questions like this: What are they hiding? What are they afraid of? What is it that they don't want the American people to see? Of course, as I said, there are going to be some sensitivities and, perhaps, even some classified information, particularly when you are talking about foreign policy. But the President has already made the key documents public. He has declassified the conversation he had with President Zelensky, and we have seen the report of the inspector general. This secrecy veil seems to be more of a necessary tool to cloak information that doesn't align with their narrative. They simply don't want people to hear all sides of the story. I have no doubt that if the facts were on their side, they would allow this process to be in the open. If they actually thought that transparency would benefit them, they would throw the doors wide open and do it out in public and let the American people judge it for themselves, and if facts were on their side, they would then hold a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives authorizing this impeachment inquiry, which has been done each time in the past. But from what we read, Speaker Pelosi is trying to protect her vulnerable House Members from being held accountable for their vote, particularly those in swing districts that won in 2018. So this is more another part of the political calculation at work here. Instead, what they are doing is constructing this narrative behind closed doors and handpicking which information to leak and which to keep secret. A true and honest investigation means following the facts where they may lead, gathering evidence, and giving the American people access to that information at every step, but that is a far cry from what is happening today. While House Democrats are freely leaking the details of the impeachment process to the media, they are being unfair to the American people, particularly the 65 million people who voted for President Trump in the first place--but not just them. We all understand that in elections you win some and you lose some. Even the people who didn't vote for President Trump, I believe, would be committed to a fair process, particularly when going through something as serious as the potential impeachment and removal of a duly elected President of the United States. What they want to do is to undo the 2016 election, but they should at least have the courage to do it out in the open. We know what is happening as a result of the Democrats devoting 100 percent of their time and energy to reversing the results of the 2016 election by impeaching President Trump. Their constituents sitting at home are wondering what it is they are actually going to be able to accomplish. When we have elections, ordinarily candidates run for office and say: If you elect me, I will do this, this, and this. The House Democrats have given up on that. Forget their campaign promises. Forget what they told their voters in the 2018 election. They are all in on the impeachment and removal of the President. The rest of that stuff is just talk--at least that is how it appears. There are a lot of important things we can and should be doing in Washington as opposed to this political side show. We have had many productive hearings and efforts on such important items as trying to reduce mass violence, which is something we are all concerned about, how to bring down costs and increase choice when it comes to our healthcare system, how to improve trade so we can sell the things we grow and make in America to markets around the world, and how we can continue this incredible trend line when it comes to our economy, where unemployment is at historically low levels and particularly African- American and Hispanic unemployment is at historically the lowest level in recorded history. Forget all of that. House Democrats are full steam ahead on impeachment, which will make it virtually impossible for us to pass productive, bipartisan legislation. It will make it virtually impossible for them to keep the promises they themselves made to their constituents when they ran for election in 2018, and that is a crying shame. This is the final point I want to make. We are 13 months--13 months-- from a general election. President Trump will be on the ballot. These folks, who apparently have never gotten over their loss in 2016, will have a chance to cast their votes again. So will the American people. We will be able to take a look at the Democratic nominee, along with President Trump, the Republican nominee, and we will be able to vote 13 months from now. But, to me, it says the Democrats are not particularly optimistic about the outcome of the 2020 election, given that choice, because they are not going to wait for the election to occur; they want to divide the country, they want to paralyze Congress, and they want to impeach President Trump 13 months before the election. I hope cooler heads will prevail. Democrats should work with us to pass bipartisan legislation that will actually make our country better off rather than pursuing this purely political agenda of impeachment. I think it is disgraceful the way the House Democrats have chosen to pursue this clandestine impeachment process rather than focus on what is best for the American people. Let the voters cast their ballots 13 months from now rather than put our country through this divisive and ultimately futile effort to impeach and remove President Trump. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we are a proud nation of immigrants and have benefited from the diversity of ideas and cultures that have come from around the world to experience the freedoms that we enjoy in the United States of America. September 15 through October 15 is Hispanic Heritage Month and a time to especially celebrate the traditions and contributions of the tens of millions of Hispanic and Latino Americans across our country. Texas is home to more than 11 million Hispanic Americans. Some have lived here for generations, and others have contributed to the recent rapid growth of the Lone Star State. Throughout our State's history, we have benefited from the leadership of people like Dr. Hector Garcia, a surgeon, a decorated World War II veteran, and a civil rights advocate. He founded the American GI Forum to ensure that veterans receive equal benefits and care regardless of their race or ethnicity. He was an ardent advocate for equal educational opportunities, and his motto was ``Education is our freedom, and freedom should be everybody's business.'' Dr. Garcia became the first Mexican American to serve as the Ambassador to the United Nations, representing our country on the world stage. President Ronald Reagan later bestowed upon him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. His legacy is a reminder of what a single person can accomplish in the face of adversity, if only they have the courage to fight for what is right. Today, Texas is proud to have incredible Hispanic-American leaders across our State, including Ruth Hughs, who last month was sworn in as our secretary of state, and people like Justice Eva Guzman, who is the first Hispanic woman to serve on the Texas Supreme Court. There are incredible organizations, such as the Hispanic chambers of commerce, that advocate for Hispanic-owned small businesses that are vital to our economy. There is also the League of United Latin American Citizens--or, as we know it, LULAC--that fights to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans, particularly when it comes to education. Hispanic leaders can be found in city halls, board rooms, and communities throughout our State and are improving our State in big ways and small ones as well. I have the honor of representing 28 million Texans--and it is growing by about 1,000 people a day, but nearly 40 percent of them identify as Hispanic. When Texans come to Washington, they have the opportunity to visit the museums that hold some of the most important stories and artifacts from our Nation's history. In recent years, we have made two very important additions to the Smithsonian Institution with the National Museum of the American Indian and the National Museum of African American History and Culture. But it is time for another addition. Earlier this year, I introduced the National Museum of the American Latino Act, which would authorize the Smithsonian Institution to create a museum honoring America's Latinos. This has been a work in progress since 2003, when a bill was introduced to study the creation of a museum. The process took a step forward in 2008, when a Commission was established to study the viability of such a museum and, again, when that Commission released a report detailing the feasibility of the project. This legislation will take the work that has been done up to this point and finally put into motion the process of establishing a Latino museum. As of this week, we have 200 cosponsors on the House companion legislation and nearly 20 bipartisan cosponsors here in the Senate. Bicameral, bipartisan support demonstrates that the time has come to turn the dream of this museum into a reality. Hispanic Americans have made innumerable contributions to our country, and these stories deserve a brick and mortar home here in Washington, DC, in our Nation's Capital. Our State and our Nation are stronger, smarter, and more inclusive because of the contributions of generations of Hispanic Americans. So I am glad to spend this month reflecting on the work they have done and celebrating the heritage that is uniquely woven into the fabric of the United States of America. 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. President, our friends in the House, led by Speaker Pelosi, have adopted a new strategy for handling allegations of wrongdoing. It is a dangerous approach, one in which opinions count for more than the facts and politics trumps everything else, including the law. Yesterday evening, Speaker Pelosi announced that the House is now moving full steam toward impeaching President Trump. When the announcement was made, the only information they had in their hands was press reports--no report of the transcript, no facts, no evidence, no nothing--and that is really all they needed. Any hook, any angle, any straw they might be able to grasp in order to justify this unjustifiable action was good enough for them--hearsay and press reports. House Democrats began this process of impeaching the President based on a so-called whistleblower complaint they hadn't even read, which detailed a call they hadn't seen a transcript of. Meanwhile, we know the media eagerly reported that the ``whistleblower'' didn't even have firsthand knowledge of the situation--something we now know to be true. In other words, the alleged whistleblower doesn't legally qualify as a whistleblower because he or she wasn't there when the conversation took place but, rather, reported something that somebody told somebody else--otherwise known as hearsay. Forget obtaining the evidence, giving people an opportunity to be heard, and the facts considered. Rather than looking into that, they decided on a result they wanted to achieve and were looking at trying to backfill a justification or something that is unjustified based on the facts we know now. Of course, we know what this is. This is a continuation of the election in 2016 where our Democratic friends can't believe that Hillary Clinton lost the election to Donald Trump. We know that after that, they claimed: Well, Hillary Clinton actually won the popular vote. Forget the Constitution and the role of the electoral college. Because of the constitutional requirement that the electoral college vote and whoever wins the majority becomes President--they said: Forget the Constitution. Then there was the former FBI Director, Comey, who leaked memos to a buddy of his and then asked him to leak them to the press because he wanted to make sure that a special counsel was appointed to investigate and potentially prosecute President Trump. We know this investigation went on for years and cost millions of dollars and ended up with the conclusion of no obstruction and no collusion. You can imagine the disappointment of our friends in the media who had written about this assuming that President Trump would be indicted, maybe convicted of some offense, only to find out there was no collusion, no obstruction, and no charges. So now we know that the Speaker and her colleagues in the House have grabbed hold of this straw without knowing the facts and without even waiting for the evidence to be revealed. The Speaker's decision to impeach the President says everything you need to know about their intentions. It doesn't matter what was said or what was not said; it is about relitigating the 2016 election--something our Democratic colleagues have never ever been able to accept. They are trying to defy the voters who voted for President Trump in 2016. Does a whistleblower complaint deserve to be examined and taken seriously? Absolutely. In fact, the Senate Intelligence Committee, on which I and the Presiding Officer sit, will do just that. We are in the process of doing that. Before the Speaker's announcement yesterday, the President had agreed to release the full, unredacted transcript of the call, and this morning, he did. Tomorrow, the Senate Intelligence Committee will hear from Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, as well as the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community, Michael Atkinson, to learn more about their role in this process. That is exactly how this matter should be handled--with care, by the rules, I would say by the book, and make sure that everybody's rights are protected before people begin to cast unjustified and slanderous allegations. Our friends in the House, the House Democrats, aren't just fanning flames here; they have been pouring gasoline out for months through their baseless oversight hearings and all-out obsession with the Mueller investigation, which ended up with a big belly flop. Yesterday, Speaker Pelosi lit the match, and there is no turning back now. The American people have made abundantly clear that this sort of partisan exercise is not what they want, especially when it comes at the expense of other important work that we are not going to be able to accomplish because of this obsession with eliminating President Trump. In a poll this summer, only 34 percent of Texans supported impeachment. While so much remains in the air, this move has made one thing clear: Our House colleagues have zero interest in doing the jobs they were elected to do in 2018, and given the fact that the voters gave them the majority, they show zero interest in governing and in passing legislation. Instead of working with both sides of the aisle to pass bipartisan legislation to lower drug costs, to try to address the concern about mass shootings, to ratify the trade agreement known as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, and otherwise try to make life better for the American people--that is not the route they have chosen. They have chosen a partisan, political path, which will absolutely suck all the oxygen out of Washington. It will be an obsession of the media and the American people until it is concluded, crowding out anything and everything else that we might do that might improve the lives of regular Americans. The Democrats' decision to move forward with impeachment and toward removing the President from office will make solving these big challenges facing our country nearly impossible. House Democrats aren't doing what is right and what is best for our country; they are driving an even bigger wedge between the American people to serve their partisan political interests and using the Constitution to hedge a political fight. Now, make no mistake about it--when Special Counsel Mueller was doing his investigation, it was an investigation to see whether crimes had been committed and if they had been, to present that evidence to a grand jury and indict those who were more likely than not to have committed those offenses and then to try the case to a conclusion in a court. That is not what impeachment is. Impeachment is solely a political exercise, and it is a political exercise to defeat President Trump even though the American people voted for him as the President of the United States. Notwithstanding the gasoline that House Democrats have been pouring on this issue and the fact that Speaker Pelosi decided to light the match and to ignite it yesterday, one thing is sure, and that is that cooler heads will prevail here in the Senate. We know bipartisan oversight is already under way. House Democrats' obsession with the 2016 election has gone too far, and in fact, they should be embarrassed by what they have done. Meanwhile, we will carefully examine the record, root out the evidence, and follow that evidence wherever it may lead. It is important to have a fair trial before you decide to hand out punishment, not hand out the punishment and then somehow look for justification for an already reached conclusion. Debbie Smith Act of 2019 Mr. President, on another matter, it has been 4 months since we passed the Debbie Smith Act of 2019. This legislation sailed through the Senate without any Senator voting against it. And why would they? It is as bipartisan--you might even say nonpartisan--as they come. The Debbie Smith Act, as Members know, sends vital funding to State and local crime labs to test DNA evidence. It authorizes training for law enforcement and forensic nurses and enables law enforcement to identify violent criminals and get them off the streets. The benefit of the Debbie Smith Act is wide-ranging, but it continues to deliver on the initial goal of reducing the national rape kit backlog. That is right--at one point, there were as many as 400,000 untested rape kits sitting in labs or on evidence shelves in police lockers, and each one of those forensic rape kits held the keys to identifying a person who had committed a sexual assault or some other crime. In Texas alone, the Debbie Smith Act has helped us reduce the backlog of untested rape kits by approximately 90 percent. Since 2001, we have gone from roughly around 20,000 untested rape kits to 2,000. That is still too many; we need to test all of them. We have made serious progress, and I won't be satisfied until that untested rape kit number gets to zero, but to do that, Congress needs to reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act. It should be obvious, but I will say it anyway. This program transcends politics or party. Allowing it to expire is a disservice to the victims and the advocates who have championed this legislation since it was first enacted 15 years ago. I introduced the Debbie Smith Act of 2019 in the Senate with my friend and colleague from California, a Democrat, Senator Dianne Feinstein, which just demonstrates bipartisan support from Republicans, Democrats, victims' rights groups, law enforcement, you name it. But despite all that, Speaker Pelosi has refused to bring this legislation to the House floor for a vote, and unless they pass it soon, this critical program will expire for the first time in a week. There was absolutely no problem reauthorizing this critical program in 2008 or 2014, but clearly times have changed. Our House Democratic colleagues aren't above politicizing something as noncontroversial as reducing the rape kit backlog. If House Democrats allow this to expire, funds could soon be taken away from crucial activities like prosecuting cold cases, reducing the backlog, or capacity enhancing efforts. It is simply inexcusable and shameful that Speaker Pelosi and the House would allow the Debbie Smith Act to expire when they have had a bipartisan bill in their hands for 4 months. Well, just when you think you have seen it all around here--we have seen a lot of partisan antics in the House this year, but this one really takes the cake. I urge our colleagues in the House to quit the games and pass this critical legislation to support victims of sexual assault without further delay. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on Sunday I had the great honor of joining President Trump in welcoming Prime Minister Modi to the Lone Star State in an event that was appropriately named ``Howdy, Modi.'' When his trip was announced, people on the west coast and the east coast wondered, ``Why Texas?'' They thought, maybe, he would go to Silicon Valley to talk to Big Tech executives or spend some time in Washington hobnobbing with diplomats and legislative leaders. Those are great places to visit, but Houston is the energy capital of the world. It is providing literal fuel for our growing relationship with the Nation of India. After nearly a four-decade ban on U.S. crude oil exports was lifted, Texas sent the first American crude oil to India, and today India is increasingly running on American natural gas. The reason that is important is, when I visited India for the first time in 2004, I witnessed a country that is a study in contrast--some highly populated areas like Delhi and others, and then rural areas on the way to the Taj Mahal in Agra, you can see people literally living off the land and using dried cow manure as fuel for their food and for warmth. Obviously, India needs access to affordable energy that America--and Texas, in particular--can provide to help improve their standard of living. This trade is also vital to our economy in Texas, and we will keep exporting our greatest natural resource to our friends in India and around the world as a result of the energy renaissance we have seen and as a result of the use of unconventional extraction techniques like fracking and horizontal drilling. Those must sound like foreign words to people in Washington, DC, who think we ought to be able to live on solar panels and windmills exclusively, but I always say, as important as renewable energy is--and it is important--Texas generates the most electricity for any State in the Nation from wind turbines. The wind doesn't always blow and the Sun doesn't always shine, and you need some sort of baseload to try to keep the electricity flowing so people can be afforded the comforts of life and particularly in hot Texas summers make sure the air-conditioner continues to work. For as deep as our economic ties are, our cultural ties are just as strong. Texas is home to a vibrant Indian diaspora, with more than 150,000 Indian Americans living in the Houston area alone and perhaps about half a million across our entire State. I was glad the Prime Minister had a chance to witness the Indian culture that is woven into the fabric of our State and meet a number of proud Indian Americans, including the 50,000 who showed up for the ``Howdy, Modi'' events in Houston on Sunday, from 48 States, I am told. Knowing the importance of a strong U.S.-India relationship, 15 years ago I cofounded the U.S.-India Caucus in the Senate. That was at the request of one of my constituents who founded one of the Indo-American Chambers in the metroplex in Dallas, TX, years ago. He is the one who encouraged my wife and I to travel to India in the first place, where I learned a lot about the country--the study in contrasts I mentioned but also that this is the world's largest democracy, and we shared so many values with that country because of our common English heritage and particularly our respect for the rule of law and use of the English language predominantly. We also saw the advantage of collaborating with India economically-- 1.3 billion people--a great market for the things we make and grow in the United States and a great way to raise the standard of living in India as we deepen our ties militarily and from a national security standpoint. The difference between today and what things were like as recently as 2008, in terms of trade, is just like night and day. In 2016, the United States designated India as a ``major defense partner,'' with the goal of elevating our partnership with India to the same level as those of our other closest allies. Since then, we have taken a number of steps to strengthen our defense relationship, such as establishing ministerial dialogue, increasing arms sales to India, and the first U.S.-India triservice exercise later this year. We have made real progress, but there is more we can do to ensure that our efforts are aligned, just as our interests are aligned. Particularly as China is on the march, having a strong and vibrant economy and a strong defense partner in India is more important than ever. Earlier this year, I also introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on U.S.-India defense cooperation in the Western Indian Ocean within 180 days of enactment. It will allow us to get a clearer picture of current military activities and will enable the Secretary of Defense to enter into military cooperation agreements and conduct regular joint military training and operations with India in the Western Indian Ocean. This would be a major step to bolster our relationship and strengthen our defense cooperation. I am hopeful this provision will ultimately be included in the Defense authorization bill that is now going through the conference committee between the House and the Senate, and I am optimistic we will be able to get the President's signature and see this critical legislation enacted into law. (Ms. McSALLY assumed the Chair.) Tropical Storm Imelda Madam President, briefly, on one other matter, Tropical Storm Imelda made landfall in Southeast Texas last week and dumped massive amounts of rain all across the region. It is just 2 years after Hurricane Harvey, which is a more familiar name to people up here in DC, but the scenes are heartbreakingly similar. It wasn't the high winds so much as it was the incredible amount of water that was dumped into the Houston area and the surrounding counties. Neighborhood streets began to look more like rivers than roads. Folks were wading in the water, carrying children on their shoulders, and personal belongings washed away with raging floodwaters. We have learned before, and we were reminded again, that these storms aren't only disruptive; they are incredibly dangerous. Five people have died as a result of the storm, and hundreds more remain displaced. Imelda was the fifth wettest tropical cyclone in the continental United States, with some areas receiving more than 3\1/2\ feet of rain in a very short period of time. But as we have learned before, these trying times seem to somehow bring out the best in people. A group of residents in the small community of Cheek, TX, waded through chest-high water to rescue nine horses. Furniture store owner Jim McIngvale, known to all of us as ``Mattress Mack,'' once again opened up his stores as a shelter for victims. His employees were running rescue operations, taking furniture trucks out to pick up those who had been stranded by high water. There was even a 21-year-old college student who worked all night alone at a Beaumont hotel for 32 hours straight. Not only did he singlehandedly manage a hotel, he and other guests ventured out into the flood to help distribute food and water to truckers stranded in their trucks. I am grateful to the countless people who have helped their neighbors in big and small ways alike and who will no doubt continue supporting their communities in the months ahead. For many Texans, this is the second time in 2 years they have had to recover from extraordinary flooding. The storm completely devastated communities throughout the southeast part of my State, and folks are just now beginning what will undoubtedly be a major cleanup effort. With waters receding, local officials are now taking stock of the damage and moving from response to recovery. These rain events--these huge floods--are often more than any one city or one county can manage alone. It is an all-hands-on-deck moment that brings together local, State, and Federal officials, as well as nongovernmental organizations. Governor Abbott declared a state of disaster in several counties to ensure State resources are available to local government agencies. Last week, I spoke to many of the county judges who have jurisdiction over much of these flooded areas, the hardest hit areas, and I offered my support. I want to assure everyone who has been impacted by the storm that they are not alone and that we are committed to working together as State, local, and Federal officials to ensure that they have what they need to recover from this devastating Tropical Storm Imelda. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. 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.

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, today Speaker Pelosi unveiled the House's plan to try to lower out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs. This, of course, has been a priority for many of us in Washington, including the Presiding Officer. We have been working on it really hard here in the Senate. Actually, three standing committees of the Senate have now reported out legislation dealing with this issue: the Judiciary Committee, the Finance Committee, and the HELP Committee, or the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. All are working together to try to come with up bipartisan packages to lower prescription drug costs. These bills, of course, include ideas from Republicans and Democrats. Mr. President, apparently, we have some technical difficulties here.

Mr. CORNYN. It sounds like we have fixed that. Thank you. As I was saying, while these bills include ideas from both Republicans and Democrats, it shouldn't surprise people that in an area as complex as this, there are going to be some disagreements along the way. But that is what we do here: We work through those disagreements and try to build consensus. While I know that it is only a bipartisan bill that has any chance at all to make its way to the President's desk for his signature, Speaker Pelosi appears to have a different approach. House Democrats want to replace our free-market healthcare system with the heavyhanded government approach that puts us on a path to socialized medicine. They want to allow the government to set prices and put bureaucrats at the center of our healthcare system, instead of patients. The Speaker's plan is just the latest example of a partisan messaging document masquerading as legislation, and it has absolutely no chance-- zero, zip, nada--of passing the Senate or becoming law. In contrast, the ideas we have been working on would lower out-of- pocket costs by increasing competition and transparency, while stopping the bad actors who try to game the system. Unlike the House, we have been considering bills that have broad bipartisan support, as I said, which means they have the potential to actually become law, to get something done. Speaker Pelosi should take note that we in the Senate have done the hard work of finding consensus with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I encourage our friends in the House of Representatives to stop wasting time and, instead, start working in a bipartisan fashion and work on legislation that can actually become law. Only then will the American people see the benefit of a reduction in out-of-pocket costs for their prescription drugs.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, one of most poignant moments of my life-- and certainly of my career here in the Senate--came in 2017, when a gunman opened fire on a Sunday service at the little Baptist Church right outside of Sutherland Springs, TX. Twenty-six lives were lost that day; 20 people were injured; and the entire community--that small, little community outside of San Antonio-- was shaken to its core by this hateful act. It didn't take us too long to learn about the shooter--a man with a record of domestic violence, animal cruelty, and mental illness. He had been court-martialed by the Air Force and convicted of serious domestic abuse, which is a felony. By law, the shooter should have been prevented from purchasing or even possessing a firearm, but he wasn't because the critically important information about his criminal background had not been uploaded into the relevant background check databases maintained by the FBI, even though a Federal statute clearly states that all Federal agencies are required to do so. As a result, the gunman was able to unlawfully purchase four firearms, three of which he used to carry out this despicable act. In the wake of any tragedy like this, you can't help but ask: What if? In this instance, it was our sad duty to ask those questions, but we knew the answer. If his criminal record had been uploaded into the FBI background check system, the shooter would have been prevented from purchasing these firearms that he used in the attack. It was the worst kind of system failure. I searched my conscience, and I searched the record to try to figure out exactly what we might be able to do to prevent acts like this from occurring in the future. Ten days after the shooting, I introduced a bill called the Fix NICS Act. Now, it is a little bit confusing. NICS is the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. But it was clear that we needed to fix the National Instant Criminal Background Check System--hence, the name Fix NICS Act, which is now law. That law broadened the background check system to prevent violent criminals who shouldn't be able to purchase firearms from being able to do so. It was actually one of the good things that came out of this terrible tragedy. At a time when division and partisanship were much more common than working together, we actually were able to overcome that partisan divide and division to pass this commonsense solution to a real problem, which I am convinced will save lives in the future. This is the kind of thing our constituents expect us to do and what we need to do more of. It has been 2 years since the shooting in Sutherland Springs. Unfortunately, that was not the last mass violence episode experienced by the State of Texas. On August 3 of this year, a gunman stormed the El Paso Walmart, killing 22 people and wounding two dozen others. Less than a month later, on August 31, a man went on a shooting rampage in Midland and Odessa, killing 7 people and wounding 25. I visited each of these cities in the days following the shootings to pay my respects to those who had lost loved ones, to visit those who were still recovering in hospital rooms, and also to thank the law enforcement officers who I believe saved lives that would have otherwise been lost but for their quick and professional response. In those early days, we were still gathering information and working to get to the bottom of how these shootings happened. Now that we have a pretty good idea about what happened and what didn't happen that should have happened, it is time to work on solutions to help prevent these types of episodes of mass violence in the future. Over the weekend, the minority leader here in the Senate and the House Speaker said that any proposal that does not include the House- passed universal background check legislation ``will not get the job done.'' But I would say to them that there is simply no evidence that if the House bill was law, it would have prevented any of these recent acts of violence. I have to ask: If the solution that you proposed would not have prevented these acts from occurring, what is the point? Is this about making a statement? Is this about virtue signaling? Is this about politics? Or is this about trying to come up with solutions to the problem? We also know that the President has repeatedly issued a veto threat on that particular bill, and we know there is zero--zero chance--that it will ever become law. That is not what I call getting the job done. Some of the folks who don't believe in the Second Amendment are using these tragedies to advance an agenda rather than to try to solve a problem. That is not good enough, and this is not what the American people deserve. I am not interested in introducing legislation just because we are being urged to ``do something.'' I am interested in trying to solve a problem and save lives in the process. That is what we did with the Fix NICS legislation, and that is exactly what we need to do by coming together once again. In the wake of the shootings in El Paso, Midland, and Odessa, I have been working on some ideas that I believe can, once again, help to unite Congress so we can pass laws that will have a real impact, and not just ``do something.'' One of the most important ways to intervene as early as possible is to improve access to mental health services. Assisted outpatient treatment programs, otherwise known as AOTs, were under the 21st Century Cures Act, as part of a bill I introduced back then called the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act. What is so important about assisted outpatient treatment programs is the alternatives available to a family member. When your son or daughter or your spouse or your parent or your brother or your sister becomes mentally ill and is suffering a crisis, your options are extraordinarily limited. The assistant outpatient treatment programs provide alternatives to allow a family member to help somebody undergoing a mental health crisis who otherwise might be a danger to themselves and others. We know that the most common cause of gun-related deaths are suicides. If we could somehow get people the mental health treatment they need early, before they even think about taking their own life, we would save many lives. If we can get people--like Adam Lanza, for example, in Sandy Hook--mental health treatment, so he does not become violent to others as well, I think we have a very realistic opportunity to actually save lives going forward. The Mental Health and Safe Communities Act also increased resources and training for law enforcement and first responders to identify those with mental illness and respond with treatment-based alternatives. By strengthening and expanding these programs and prioritizing a strong mental health workforce, I believe we can avert potential crises before they happen--not all of them, but I think we can make some real progress. Additionally, I think there are things we could do to build on the success of Fix NICS by enforcing current law and improving the existing background check system. We know we need to take decisive action against individuals who are violating current law by selling and manufacturing large numbers of firearms without a Federal firearms license. It is clearly Congress's intent to make sure that if you are in the business of buying and selling firearms in a commercial enterprise, you should be licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or the ATF. For example, the shooter in Odessa attempted to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer, but because licensed dealers must perform background checks, he flunked it. He managed to circumvent the background check requirement by later purchasing his weapon from an individual who was obviously in the business of manufacturing and selling firearms, but who never registered as a firearms dealer. Thus, the shooter evaded a background check, because, as I said, all federally licensed firearms dealers are required to do that. We know that, under current law, it can be difficult to prosecute individuals who are circumventing Federal law when they fail to register as a federally licensed firearms dealer. I believe Congress has a role--and there is a pretty clear path forward--to clarify existing law so that unlicensed dealers can be prosecuted and more people in the business of selling firearms will become federally licensed firearms dealers and, thus, by definition, end up doing more background checks when they are in the business of doing so. As we have learned as well, it is also important for us to take additional steps to harden soft targets like schools. We know that people don't generally try to shoot up a police station. They go to the soft targets, where these cowards know they will not be met with much resistance. We need to improve intervention and threat assessment at schools and share information more broadly between teachers, parents, and counselors so we can identify potential acts of violence before they occur. My point is that we need to focus on things that could actually work. In the case of the Fix NICS Act, it was able to become law because it had the support of both Republicans and Democrats here in Congress, as well as the President. That is precisely what we need to do again. The sorts of things I mentioned are real and meaningful changes we can make here to prevent more communities from grieving from additional tragedies. I hope we rise to the occasion and once again work together and come up with consensus legislation. I, as one Senator, am willing to work with anyone on either side of the aisle to build consensus and to pass legislation that will make our country and our communities safer. Brett Kavanaugh Mr. President, briefly on another matter, Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed almost a year ago, but that hasn't stopped the partisans on the left from carrying out their fact-devoid smear campaign. About this time last year, the confirmation hearing for an exceptionally well-qualified nominee to the Supreme Court was turned into a media circus over uncorroborated and unsubstantiated allegations. I had hoped that we had moved beyond this embarrassing chapter for the Senate and for the country, but the circus has somehow returned. This time, the wild accusations didn't play out here in the Senate but rather in the New York Times. That newspaper ran a story over the weekend that publicized more unsubstantiated allegations against the Justice from way back when he was in college. The authors and editors managed to leave out the most critical detail of the entire story. The woman at the center of this reported alleged event declined to be interviewed by the journalists, and her friends say she doesn't even recall such an event from occurring. But the New York Times printed it anyway. Well, the reaction was predictable and immediate. As members of the media began pointing out this glaring hole in the story, some Democrats saw an opportunity to continue their smear campaign against this good man. They pounced on these unsubstantiated claims as evidence of wrongdoing by Justice Kavanaugh and began calling for his impeachment. Once the paper issued its colossal correction, none of these folks backed down or apologized for calling for the impeachment of this good judge, this good man, even though the newspaper admitted their error. This isn't about the allegations or an investigation, or even Justice Kavanaugh, for that matter. This is just the latest assault on the independence of the Federal judiciary by a party that is struggling to come to grips with reality. From alarming court-packing calls to baseless allegations against a sitting Supreme Court Justice, I am not anxious to see what sort of reprehensible allegations and attacks they come up with next. I would like to reiterate the commitment made by the majority leader earlier this week. As long as we remain in the Senate, we will prevent this type of mob rule and this sort of media circus and fight to preserve the rule of law and the independence of our judiciary. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to legislative session to resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 2740; further, that at 2:20 p.m., there be up to 20 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member; and that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2740, with the mandatory quorum call being waived.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 6 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on commerce, science, and transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 18, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on environment and public works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 18, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 18, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 18, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 18, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on indian affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 18, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me begin my remarks by thanking my friend for, No. 1, visiting Texas this past weekend. We are next-door neighbors. We share a lot in common. But, particularly, I want to thank him for highlighting this injustice. It is shocking to me that a U.S. Senator would have to introduce legislation to pass both Houses and get the President's signature for people to get their money back from the Federal Government. It is shocking, and I didn't know anything about it until the Senator from Louisiana highlighted it, so I thank him for that. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill and would encourage all of our colleagues to join. I can't imagine why it couldn't pass by unanimous consent. I don't even know why we need to process this through the normal regular order, as we call it around here, but I wish him good luck and certainly my constituents would like to see that $2.1 billion back in their pockets instead of the Federal Treasury. So I thank him.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 5 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 energy and natural resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 17, 2019, at 9:30 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, September 17, 2019, at 10 a.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, September 17, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing. subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights The Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 17, 2019, at 2.30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 17, 2019, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I think people are surprised when they come to Texas and find out how diverse a State it really is. Not everybody there looks like me or pronounces their last name the same way. In fact, we are a huge melting pot of people from all over the country and, literally, many from around the world who come to the State because we have a growing economy, creating jobs and opportunity. People can find work to provide for their family and achieve their dreams. It shouldn't surprise anybody that Texas is increasingly diverse. We have benefited a lot from the variety of folks and cultures and ideas that have come around the world and planted roots in the Lone Star State. When I ask folks if they know what the second most spoken language in Texas is, they say: Well, that is easy. It is Spanish. I say: Well, that is right. Let me give you a harder one. What is the third most commonly spoken language in Texas? After a couple of guesses, they are usually surprised when I say Vietnamese. It is not in the overall numbers of Spanish or English, to be sure, but we have a vibrant Vietnamese community in Texas that was established after the fall of Saigon and the Vietnam war. Many of them immigrated to the Houston area or to the metroplex area. Of course, they have faced many of the same struggles as those who have come to America throughout our country's history. In addition to adjusting to a new home, language, and culture, they have dealt with some ugly aspects of their new home: racism and bigotry. From those challenges and from overcoming those challenges, they have derived tremendous strength, demonstrated outstanding drive and a desire to succeed. Our Vietnamese-American communities in Texas are growing and thriving, and they continue to play a very important role in our increasingly diverse State. I had the chance to meet with a number of my Vietnamese-American constituents during the August break, and we talked about some of the issues that concern them the most. Just last weekend, in fact, I visited Cali Saigon Mall in Garland, TX, for their annual children's festival. I participated in an on-stage discussion with a number of community leaders. Although the children seemed more interested in the tiger dance or musical performances and the colorful costumes, it was a great opportunity for me to hear from these folks firsthand. We had a serious discussion about the human rights climate in Vietnam, which has continued to decline. The Vietnamese Government limits political freedom by denying its own citizens their right to vote in free and fair elections. It denies them the freedom of assembly and expression and due process rights--the sorts of basic rights we call human rights here in the United States. Last year, one of my constituents, a young man named William Nguyen, was unjustly beaten and detained for participating in demonstrations in Ho Chi Minh City. We were fortunate enough to secure his release back home after the government convicted him on trumped-up charges. I was glad to welcome him back to the good old U.S. of A. Sadly, the people who continue to live in Vietnam have to escape from a brutal Communist regime, which continues to disregard the most basic human rights, threaten religious freedom, and silence the press. Vietnam remains one of the lowest ranked countries in the world when it comes to freedom of the press. In 2018, Reporters Without Borders ranked Vietnam 176th out of 180 countries worldwide. It should come as no surprise that Vietnamese Americans who have lived under this type of rule--or who have family members who still do--don't take our freedoms here in America for granted. It is just the opposite. These immigrants are great patriots who fully appreciate the freedoms they enjoy here in America because they realize how close they came to seeing those same freedoms denied in their home country. With them, I share their concerns about the rising interest here at home in failed ideas, like socialism, and will continue to dispel rumors that socialism can provide more than the free enterprise system, which has created the very prosperity that Vietnamese Americans and other immigrants enjoy here in the United States. In addition to our efforts to strengthen our own democracy, we need to do more to strengthen democracies around the world and to protect basic human rights. Earlier this year, I reintroduced the Vietnam Human Rights Sanctions Act to try to do just that. This bill would impose travel restrictions and other sanctions on Vietnamese nationals complicit in human rights abuses against their fellow citizens. These sanctions would not be lifted until the Vietnamese Government releases all political prisoners and stops the use of violence against peaceful demonstrators. We simply can't avert our gaze and allow these practices to continue without any sort of accountability. I say the same for what is happening now in Hong Kong. I appreciate the many Vietnamese Americans who have shared their experiences with me on this topic, and I will continue to advocate for a brighter future for the people of Vietnam.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we all know, today we commemorate the solemn anniversary of the attacks on 9/11/2001. If you ask anybody who is old enough to remember where they were that day, I bet they can tell you. It is one of those rare moments that defines an entire generation. I have always said that it is etched in my memory like the only other event in my lifetime that might rise to that level of shock and horror, and that is the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Eighteen years ago today, I was in Austin, talking on the phone to then-Governor Rick Perry. When I hung up the phone, my wife said, ``You need to see this,'' pointing to the TV set. That was just as the second plane hit the World Trade Center, and we all know what came after. It was the same image that millions of Americans struggled to understand on that morning and still struggle to comprehend today--how someone could be so evil and so determined to take innocent lives. September 11 serves as a dividing line in American history. For people like me, there is before and there is after, but for an entire generation of younger people, there is really only after. I believe this 18th anniversary carries special weight because those young people who have only lived in a post-9/11 world will now be able to vote in our elections, serve in our military, and help shape the future of our country. It is a reminder of our commitment as a nation to carry out the promise we made in the wake of the attack to ``never forget''--never forget. As Americans, we must remain vigilant, and we must remain with a strong sense of purpose and a strong moral clarity regarding confronting evil in all its forms. We vow to carry the memory of the nearly 3,000 lives lost that day in our hearts, the sense of patriotism that welled up inside of each of us, and the determination never to be intimidated, and never to back down. Today, we remember the families who lost loved ones that day, the first responders who ran not away from but toward the danger, and the commitment of our Armed Forces, who fight to eradicate terrorism around the globe each and every day.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 5 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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 11, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 11, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Aurelia Skipwith to be Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Katherine Lemos to be Member and Chairperson of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 11, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Steven J. Menashi to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, Karen S. Marston to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Richard E Myers II to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and Anuraag Singhal to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 11, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Energy The Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 11, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, for nearly 15 years, the Debbie Smith Act has been the driving force behind our progress to eliminate the Nation's rape kit backlog. Though exact numbers are difficult to estimate, experts believe there are hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits in the United States. Each one of them, of course, represents a different story--the story of a sexual assault victim. Also, as a result of DNA science, it holds the key to apprehending a violent criminal and stopping them from committing further assaults. Since the Debbie Smith Act was signed into law in 2004, more than $1 billion has been invested in State and local crime labs for DNA testing. This program also supports training for law enforcement, correctional personnel, forensic nurses, and other professionals who work with victims of sexual assault. Though the primary goal of the program is to reduce the rape kit backlog and identify attackers, processing this DNA evidence can assist investigations into other nonviolent crimes as well. Once evidence is tested, it is uploaded into the FBI's DNA database, called CODIS. This is similar to the criminal fingerprint database but provides DNA evidence that can help identify and convict people who commit other crimes. So if it is collected as a result of a sexual assault, you may, in fact, be able to get a hit that will help you identify someone who has committed a burglary, a murder, a robbery, or some other crime. This is particularly true when somebody commits a crime in one State and moves to another State--to be able to connect the identity of the person based on their DNA, not based on where the offense was committed. According to the National Institute of Justice, 42 percent of hits in the FBI's DNA database system are the direct result of Debbie Smith Act funding--42 percent. In addition to helping us get more criminals off the streets, this information could also be the key to exonerating individuals who were wrongly accused and preventing innocent people from being put behind bars for a crime they didn't commit. DNA evidence is very, very powerful. States have seen the positive results of this program at the national level and have been following suit. Texas has led the Nation in passing mandatory rape kit testing laws, conducting audits of the backlog, and using Debbie Smith funds to analyze untested sexual assault evidence. Since 2011, the Debbie Smith Act has helped Texas reduce its backlog of previously unsubmitted rape kits by approximately 90 percent--from over 20,000 kits to now around 2,000. This program has allowed us to provide victims of sexual assault with the resources they need and the answers they deserve while more effectively identifying criminals across the board. The benefits of this law simply cannot be overstated, and that is why the Debbie Smith Act was readily reauthorized in 2008 and 2014. Now it is time to once again reauthorize this important legislation. Earlier this year, Senator Feinstein, the senior Senator from California, and I introduced the Debbie Smith Act of 2019, which will extend this program through 2024. As you might expect, with this kind of nonpartisan legislation, it sailed through the Senate earlier this year. In fact, it passed the Senate in May with not one person voting against it. But here we are, nearly 4 months later, and the House of Representatives has not scheduled a vote. If they don't take action before September 30, the law will expire--something I hope we all can agree would be unconscionable and certainly completely unnecessary. The benefits of this program transcend politics or party, and allowing it to expire would be a disservice to the victims and advocates who have championed this bill for the last 15 years, particularly Debbie Smith herself. It is time for the House to vote to reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act so that we can get it to the President's desk without further delay. One of the strongest advocates for the reauthorization of the Debbie Smith Act is the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, also known as RAINN. It is the Nation's largest anti-sexual violence organization, and in its 25-year history, it has helped 3 million survivors and their loved ones. Last week, RAINN held a press conference announcing the delivery of more than 32,000 signatures urging the immediate passage of this legislation by the House of Representatives. Debbie Smith also spoke at the press conference. Just to remind colleagues, Debbie is, of course, a remarkable woman whose advocacy was born from a terrible personal experience. We have had the benefit of hearing from Debbie over the years many times in the Judiciary Committee. I believe there is no one--no one--who has done more to support victims of sexual assault than Debbie, and I am continually grateful to her for her courage and her candor as she travels around the country advocating for survivors. It can't be easy to talk about your own personal sexual assault and how you tried to grapple with the fact that your rape kit has not been tested and, thus, you don't even know who your attacker was and whether he may show up at some future date and try to repeat his crime. During the press conference, Debbie spoke about the years of fear she dealt with while waiting for her attacker to be identified. She said: ``The years I spent waiting for justice can never be returned to me.'' That is a heartbreaking reality for survivors of sexual violence and a reminder of why it is so critical to reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act without further delay. While we can't turn back the hands of time and somehow change history, we can act now to provide victims with the support, the answers, and the closure they need. I urge Speaker Pelosi to bring the Debbie Smith Act of 2019 to the floor for a vote immediately in the House to demonstrate Congress's ongoing commitment to support victims of sexual violence. I yield the floor.