John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``How Much For A Song?: The Antitrust Decrees that Govern the Market for Music.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Continuing America's Leadership in Medical Innovation for Patients.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``U.S. Policy in Ukraine: Countering Russia and Driving Reform.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2015, at 10:15 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Tax Complexity, Compliance, and Administration: The Merits of Simplification in Tax Reform.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from West Virginia will be giving her first speech in the Senate here shortly and I look forward to listening to that, but I wanted to say a few words about the legislation we will be debating and hopefully passing this week, and that is the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. This is without a doubt one of the most shocking and troubling issues facing our country today. It is no exaggeration to say modern-day human slavery, at a time when we believed as a country that slavery was a part of our past and something we only read about in our history books. Many people are under the impression that human trafficking is a problem somewhere else or at some other time in history, but the fact is human trafficking is a problem right now in all 50 States, right here in the United States of America, the most affluent country in the world. It is not just a problem in Texas, it is not just a problem in Arizona, it is not just a problem in West Virginia, it is a problem in all 50 States. Thousands of young girls, many of them middle school age, are trapped into a life of bondage where they are abused and sold for sex every day. It is not easy to say, but it is true, and we must say it and we must acknowledge it. This is of course unconscionable. As the father of two daughters myself, it is simply heartbreaking to hear the stories of young women who have been trapped in this system. Of course, we can imagine it is every parent's worst nightmare. One woman I have had the privilege of meeting and who shared her very personal story about this is Melissa Woodward from the Dallas-Fort Worth area in Texas. When she was 12 years old--12 years old--she was sold into the sex trade by a family member, somebody whom she had every right to assume cared for her, loved her, wanted her to grow up being a loved and productive person. But she was sold into the sex trade by a family member. Eventually she was pulled out of school and trafficked full time when she was in sixth grade. Her life became a prison. She was chained to a bed in a warehouse. She endured regular beatings and, of course, she was sexually assaulted with regularity. She was even set on fire by one of her captors. All the while, she was forced to serve between 5 and 30 men every day. Melissa has said that she wished she were dead. Her story of her time in captivity is gut-wrenching and heartbreaking, but just as sad is the way she was treated once she escaped from her captors. As is the case with so many victims, Melissa struggled for years to distance herself from her past. But instead of being treated as the victim she was, the criminal justice system actually treated her as the criminal. That is an all too common outcome for victims of trafficking, who are labeled as prostitutes and are left with few options but to return to the nightmare that so sadly exists in our country. That needs to change. That is why I am glad the Senate is taking up the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, because this begins the process of making that important change. The bill helps law enforcement crack down on criminal trafficking rings and perpetrators of these crimes. Instead of a slap on the wrist and a fine, the so-called johns--the demand side for this terrible trade--will be treated as the child rapists and the criminals they are. No longer are we just going to deal with the supply side. We are going to pay attention to the demand side too. Critically, this bill takes fines from the perpetrators of these awful crimes and redirects them into a crime victims fund which will help people such as Melissa and others get a fresh lease on life, to begin to heal and to get the help they so badly need in order to get on with their lives. This week we have a wonderful opportunity in the Senate, in a town that is too often divided by ideology and partisanship, to do something together on a bipartisan basis that can help people such as Melissa and the thousands of young girls like her waiting to be saved. All of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, are committed to working together to do everything we can to help these victims and to put an end to this abhorrent practice. This particular legislation we are taking up today passed unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee a few weeks ago. That doesn't happen very often, but it did for this legislation. More than 200 groups around the country--such as the NAACP, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Rights4Girls, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the National Conference of State Legislatures--have all endorsed our work on this issue. I want to particularly thank some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who joined me on this effort: the senior Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, and the senior Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden. They have been great partners in this fight--not just this year but for many years. And there are many others. Another great partner has been the junior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Kirk, who has worked for years to get antitrafficking legislation to the floor. He introduced a bill called the HERO Act which authorizes a program to recruit wounded, injured, and returning veterans and provides them with training in high-tech computer forensics and law enforcement skills to help fight child exploitation. I also want to acknowledge the great contribution of the junior Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman, who has a bill called the Bringing Missing Children Home Act, which improves the way cases of missing children are handled, strengthening law enforcement reporting and response procedures. Both the HERO Act and the Bringing Missing Children Home Act have been incorporated into the underlying bill, and I want to thank both of them for their efforts and willingness to work with us to make the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act even stronger. I know there are Members who are interested in offering amendments to this legislation. Thanks to the majority leader, we are going to have an open process where anybody with a better idea who wants to add to this base of work that is contained in this bill will have the opportunity to do so, both offering amendments and seeking votes on those. This is a fight that sadly must be fought, but it is a fight we will win. When we do, we will finally have done our part to help deliver our Nation's promise of freedom to those who are enslaved.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1213, which was received from the House.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, we spend a lot of time, as one would expect in a legislative body, talking about the technical aspects of legislation and the procedure we use to consider it and pass it, a subject which perhaps many of us enjoy but which probably turns the public--puts a glaze in their eyes and bores them because they don't see the relevance of it. We talk about motions to proceed and cloture and filibusters, but what is important in the Senate is the subject matter of the legislation that we apply this procedure or these rules to. This week in the Senate we will be undertaking a very important subject; that is, how to protect our fellow citizens, many of them children, who are needing our help and waiting to be rescued. Those are children who are being trafficked in the commercial sex and forced-labor trade--not over there, not necessarily just in some other country, but right here in the United States of America. I believe that we are all created in the image of God, that all human beings are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. But the criminals who traffic in human flesh treat these same human beings created in the image of God as a thing. They treat these children as a commodity to be bought and sold. To me that is the very definition of evil. A few weeks ago the Judiciary Committee heard from several witnesses on what has been called modern day slavery--human trafficking. I know many of us thought that slavery was an ugly part of our Nation's beginning but certainly only something in the past. But the truth is that there exists today something that you could legitimately call modern day slavery, and that is human trafficking. Now, even though institutionalized slavery has long been cast into the dustbin of history and is something we read about in our history books, human trafficking, particularly sex trafficking, still affects the lives of hundreds and thousands of our children. Tragically, many of them are young girls. As the father of two daughters, it turns my stomach to realize that a majority of the human beings who are trafficked are girls who are of middle-school age. In the Judiciary Committee, we heard from Malika Saada Saar who represents a wonderful organization called Rights4Girls. Malika spoke of a young woman named Aviva. According to Malika, Aviva was in foster care when a trafficker kidnapped her and held her hostage for almost a year. During this time, we learned in the Judiciary Committee during that hearing, Aviva was sold to as many as 10 different men a night. Of course, she did not understand. She could not comprehend why an adult man would want to buy her body when she was just a child. When law enforcement officials found Aviva, she was arrested for prostitution at the age of 15. Let me repeat that because it is important. This young girl who was kidnapped, raped, and sold nightly-- daily--was treated like a criminal, not a victim. In 1992 Holly Austin Smith ran away from home and was forced into a sex trafficking ring the summer before her freshman year of high school. Within hours of running away, 14-year old Holly was sold for $200 to a man who wanted her for sex because he said she reminded him of his granddaughter. When police eventually found Holly--still only a child, scared and confused, as you can only imagine--they treated her as a criminal, not as a victim. Too often these children, who are not of the age of consent, are treated as child prostitutes. As many of us who have worked on this issue for some time know, there is no such thing as a child prostitute. If you are not of the age of consent, you cannot consent, and you cannot agree to be used in such a horrific way. These are children who are bought and sold for sex--plain and simple--as nauseating as that truth is. Malika powerfully said during our hearing: ``There should be no difference between raping a child and paying to rape a child.'' Now, the individuals who commit these crimes--not just the people who traffic in them but the people who purchase these services--too often pay a fine and get on with their lives. Yet they are the child rapists who should be treated as the sex traffickers they are. If it were not for the demand, sex trafficking would not have a business model. But unfortunately, there is too great of a demand. But often the people who purchase these children are treated with impunity. Tomorrow, I expect the Senate will move to consider legislation that I have introduced with a number of our colleagues from Minnesota, Illinois, and Oregon. Indeed, there are a number of Senators who have already contributed a lot of very good and constructive work to the product we will turn to tomorrow. The bill is called the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. The most important thing that it does is that it ends the culture of impunity for the people who purchase children and other victims of human trafficking. It holds the so-called johns and the pimps accountable, and it does not focus on the victim who should be treated like a victim and helped to heal and get on with their lives. But too often they are the ones who are prosecuted and treated as a criminal. Instead of being treated as criminals, this bill makes sure that the future Avivas and Hollys are treated for what they are, and that is as victims. What this bill also does is it takes the money and assets forfeited from convicted human traffickers and directs it to services for the victims. So future Avivas and Hollys would have a shelter, a place to live, a roof over their head, a bed to sleep in, and somebody who loves them and cares enough to help them heal and get on with their lives. That is the kind of treatment these victims of human trafficking deserve--not jail time. We know that Washington can be a dysfunctional place more times than we would like to admit. So often there are political issues or ideological issues that divide us. But the fight against human trafficking reminds us that it does not have to be this way. Indeed, I was heartened a few weeks ago when this particular piece of legislation passed the Judiciary Committee with unanimous support. All Republicans and all Democrats on the committee voted to support it. Indeed, Republicans and Democrats--not just in Congress but across the country--support this legislation, as evidenced by the more than 200 different organizations, from victims' advocates to law enforcement groups, which have joined forces to fight this modern day slave trade and to support the legislation we will turn to tomorrow. It is a fight, sadly, that must be acknowledged and it must be fought. But it is a fight we can win, finally delivering our Nation's promise of freedom to those who are enslaved. It is not the kind of slavery we read about in our history books or the kind that resulted or helped precipitate the Civil War, but it is the kind that goes on unbeknownst to most Americans and most people but which represents that seamy underbelly of society, one that we must expose and one we must reveal as the evil that it is.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I came here to speak on another topic, but let me interject in light of the comments from our colleagues from across the aisle on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Everybody says, on a bipartisan basis, We want job-creating legislation. We want to facilitate the creation of new jobs here in America. When it comes to voting, our friends across the aisle seem to be stuck on voting against job-creating legislation, because our State Department has estimated that as many as 42,000 jobs would be created by the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. The thing that mystifies me the most about this debate is at last count, we had roughly 2.5 million miles of pipelines crisscrossing America. I have come to the floor before and I have suggested that people might want to do a search on their laptop or on their tablet for oil and gas pipelines, and they will see a map of those pipelines, and it looks like a spaghetti bowl, because they are everywhere. Indeed, we also know this is the most efficient and the safest way to transport natural gas and crude as well. So I remain mystified by the fact that the President and many in his party seem determined to try to kill what is clearly job-creating, energy- providing legislation that would be from a friendly source. The Israeli Prime Minister's Speech To Congress Mr. President, turning to the Middle East, yesterday, as we all know, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered what can only be characterized as a powerful and important message about the common threats to the national security of Israel and the United States. Again, only in Washington would a speech such as this be controversial. I think most people would be concerned enough about the subject matter of what he talked about that they would want to hear the insights and information he delivered in that speech. It was a powerful and important message, and really a call to arms for the United States and our allies in Israel against the threat of radical Islam, particularly in the form of Iranian terrorism. His words reminded me why--as I know many on both sides of the aisle agree--we have no closer Middle Eastern ally than Israel. Unfortunately, his speech also reinforced the belief I have held for many years that we have no bigger adversary in the Middle East than Iran. The cold, hard truth is that today, more than ever, Iran is a terror- sponsoring theocracy that is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons capability and trying to establish an Iranian axis of power from Tehran to Damascus to Beirut to Gaza. Iran claims a right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, but its leaders have routinely lied and attempted to deceive inspectors in the past as a matter of standard practice. Prime Minister Netanyahu also reminded all of us whose memories might have dimmed that over the last 30 years, Iran has engaged in a war by proxy against the United States and our allies. I was reminded by a member of my staff of an article that came out in 2011 in the National Journal. The heading of it is: ``Record Number of U.S. Troops Killed by Iranian Weapons.'' It tells the tragic story that June of 2011 was the deadliest month in 2 years for U.S. troops, with 14 killed. These were primarily by Iranian-backed militias using very deadly weapons called explosively formed penetrators that could literally cut through the steel in our humvees and other armored vehicles like a hot knife through butter. So given this track record that we were reminded of by the Prime Minister yesterday, and just the remainder that I have tried to provide here with this article, do we really believe that Iran would use its nuclear weapons in a way that would not make the world more unstable and less safe? Do we really believe that Iran, were they to get a nuclear weapon, won't give it to the same proxies that have been killing Americans and our allies in the Middle East and around the world, including the Shia militia, Hezbollah, Hamas, or the dictator in Syria, Bashar al-Assad, who has now killed roughly 200,000 of his own civilians in a civil war, and with almost 13 million people displaced not only internally, within Syria, but in neighboring countries and the like? So as the P5+1 negotiations involving the United States continue, there remain serious questions about Iran's true nuclear intentions and about whether the deal the Obama administration is eagerly finalizing-- whether it will cement Iran's status as a nuclear threshold nation. Based on some of the details we know so far, many of which are being held very close to the vest by the administration and not being made known to Congress, much less the American people, the President's deal would abandon longstanding U.S. policy of preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, period. I remember when the former Secretary of Defense, Senator Hagel at the time--he became the Secretary of the Department of Defense--when asked about our policy toward Iran, stumbled a little bit in his answer but ultimately said that containment was not our policy. Our policy was to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. But it appears now that the deal that is being negotiated on the President's behalf by Secretary Kerry would abandon that longstanding U.S. policy of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Instead, it would opt for a feeble 10- year containment plan. Such an outcome would be both dangerous and unacceptable. So while I was glad to hear Leader McConnell announce yesterday that the Senate will soon consider bipartisan legislation that would give Congress the authority to approve any agreement that is reached by the administration, that was quickly replaced by confusion when I read that some of my Democratic colleagues, who have shown great courage in urging that Congress have a role in approving any negotiated agreement between Tehran and the White House--now they are suggesting they might filibuster their own bill and the vote we are going to have at 5:30 on Monday. Yesterday, for example, one of our colleagues who had been a key sponsor of this bipartisan legislation said that he was outraged-- outraged--that the Senate would vote on the very bill that bears his name. He indicated his outrage with the Senate not for voting on the substance of the bill, but basically because of the timing. He thought the timing was wrong. In other words, he opposes voting on his own bill because of the Senate procedures and the process. I don't know how we explain that back home. I couldn't sell that to my constituents in Texas, saying, I am a sponsor of this legislation; I think it is important and the right thing to do, but I am going to vote against it because I disagree with the majority leader's timing, or the procedure by which the majority leader is bringing this to a vote and debate in the U.S. Senate. Good luck explaining that to our constituents. I suspect who is also not concerned with the process are the Israeli Government and the millions of innocent civilians who stared down an Iranian regime bent upon their annihilation every day. I suspect they could care less about the process. What they want to do is to stop Iran from getting the bomb. So I sincerely hope everyone here who has supported Israel and embraced a policy of blocking Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon will calm down and work together and consider this important piece of legislation. Because as we heard yesterday, again, from Prime Minister Netanyahu, it has profound implications for both our national security as well as the security of our best ally in the Middle East. Before the Obama administration initiated these misguided negotiations, Congress had created incredible economic pressure on the regime in Tehran through sanctions backed by the threat of military action. It also has helped, frankly, that America is now producing more oil, and the price of oil is now down around $50 a barrel, more or less. That has put incredible financial pressure on Tehran itself, because they have basically had to finance their terrorist ambitions around the world through these various proxies by use of high oil prices. But we had imposed tremendous sanctions on Tehran, which, of course, the administration is now in the process of rolling back. I believe an approach of tough sanctions is one we must return to as quickly as possible. The President and some of his friends have suggested it is either this deal or war. That is a false choice. That is not true. It is either this deal or tougher sanctions, sanctions designed along with the credible threat of military action if Tehran continues on its path to get a nuclear weapon that I believe will ultimately have the best chance of success and deter them from getting it. The concept of good-faith negotiation, though, strikes me as a little implausible when you are dealing with the rogue regime and state- sponsored terrorism. We simply cannot trust the Iranian leadership with nuclear weapons. Yet, sadly, the President seems to be traveling down a path to secure what he views as a legacy foreign policy accomplishment when he should be implementing an Iran policy that would best safeguard America and our allies for years to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate a very special day in history, particularly in Texas history, a day that inspires pride and gratitude in the hearts of all the people who call Texas home. I rise today to commemorate Texas Independence Day, which is today. I will in a moment read a letter written 179 years ago from behind the walls of an old Spanish mission called the Alamo in my hometown of San Antonio, a letter written by a 26-year-old lieutenant colonel in the Texas Army, William Barret Travis. In doing so, I carry on a tradition started by the late Senator John Tower, who represented Texas in this body for over two decades. This tradition was upheld by his successor, Senator Phil Gramm, and by his second successor, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, after him. It is a tremendous honor that this privilege has now fallen to me. On February 24, 1836, with his position under siege and outnumbered nearly 10 to 1 by the forces of the Mexican dictator Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, Travis penned the following letter: To the People of Texas and All Americans in the World: Fellow citizens & compatriots-- I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual Bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion. Otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism and everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor and that of his country. Victory or Death. Signed: ``William Barret Travis.'' As history reveals, in the battle that ensued all 189 defenders of the Alamo lost their lives, but they did not die in vain. The Battle of the Alamo actually brought precious time for the Texas revolutionaries, under the leadership of GEN Sam Houston, to maneuver his army into position for a decisive victory in the Battle of San Jacinto. With this victory--the Battle of San Jacinto--Texas became a sovereign and independent republic. For 9 years the Republic of Texas thrived as an independent nation, and then in 1845 it agreed to join the United States as the 28th State. Many of the Texas patriots who fought in the revolution went on to serve in the U.S. Congress. I am honored to hold the seat once occupied by Sam Houston, one of the first two U.S. Senators to the new State of Texas, and more broadly I am honored to have the opportunity to serve almost 27 million Texans because of the sacrifices made by these brave men 179 years ago. May we always remember the Alamo, and may God continue to bless Texas and these United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all votes after the first vote be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator from Maine--you are not alone--and the President is not alone--in stating your objections to the 2014 order. Your amendment would seek to get a vote and to put Senators on record. Is the Senator aware that there are a number--perhaps seven or eight Senators on the other side of the aisle who at different times around the November 2014 order said they were uncomfortable with the President taking this authority unto himself? In other words, I think the junior Senator from Maine was one who said that while he may agree with the outcome, this is not the right way to do it. Are you familiar with the fact that there are many of our Democratic friends who have expressed similar concerns about the illegality of the President's Executive action?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question?

Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Maine on this issue, and in her typical diligence and attention to detail, I think she has shown that the objections to a vote on the Collins amendment, which would be scheduled for Saturday unless moved up, are not well-taken. I would ask the Senator from Maine whether her interpretation of the President's Executive action in November of 2014 is any different from what the President himself said 22 different times, when he said he did not have the authority to issue such an Executive action?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?