John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 72, which was received from the House.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, unfortunately, this Congress has been defined by previously unprecedented political antics. Things that used to be far above the political fray are now getting roiled in controversy. One example is yesterday, when the minority leader blocked the bipartisan bill that I introduced to reduce drug prices--a bill that received unanimous support in the Judiciary Committee. I recognize my friend from Connecticut Senator Blumenthal, who is the chief Democratic cosponsor of that bill. I think the most egregious example of politicalization of things that used to be nonpartisan has to be the politicalization of the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA. For 25 years, this program has supported survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault through a range of critical programs and resources. As a longtime victims' rights advocate myself, I am a proud supporter of the Violence Against Women Act, and I have consistently fought not only to continue it but to strengthen it as well. I think there is more we can and should do to support victims, and I know folks on the other side of the aisle feel the same way. It is safe to say, though, that we have had our fair share of disagreements on how exactly to accomplish that. Earlier this year, our Democratic colleagues allowed VAWA to get caught in the crosshairs of a funding debate when they insisted we should not fund this vital program because it is overdue for updates. This is a rash move, to be sure. It lines up with the ``my way or the highway'' legislative strategy sometimes deployed by our friends on the other side, but that hasn't stopped my Republican colleagues, led by Senator Joni Ernst from Iowa, from pursuing a compromise. For many months now, Senator Ernst has been working with Dianne Feinstein, the Senator from California, to find ways to make improvements that both sides can agree on. That is the way things get done around here: You try to build consensus, and maybe you don't get everything you want, but if you can get 80 percent of what you want, you ought to take it and run. Last week, unfortunately, Democrats walked away from the negotiating table when it came to the Violence Against Women Act. Rather than continuing the discussions with people of opposing views, they took the easy way out and simply walked away and introduced their own partisan reauthorization--one they know has no chance of passing. Just like the version that passed the House earlier this year, this is a messaging document, worth no more than the paper it is written on. It is not going to reauthorize VAWA or make the program better, and it is not going to support victims because it stands no chance of becoming law. I am truly disappointed that our Democratic colleagues, once again, have chosen to play politics rather than deliver real results, this time for the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Despite the games being played here, my Republican colleagues and I are working to put in the hard work it takes to actually accomplish something and legislate. Senator Ernst said she will soon be introducing a good-faith proposal that actually has the chance to become law. It is not a partisan document. It really is a return to where we used to be, where the Violence Against Women Act enjoyed broad support on both sides of the aisle and was truly not just bipartisan but nonpartisan. It is a shame that something as urgent and undeniably important as combating domestic violence and sexual assault has somehow fallen prey to Washington, DC, politics. I hope our colleagues will reconsider and return to the negotiating table so we can reach a compromise and finally reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. E-Cigarettes Mr. President, on another matter, in recent months, there has been a lot of coverage in the news and in social media about the health consequences of e-cigarette use. The ``e'' stands for electronic-- electronic cigarette use. We have seen alarming headlines about vaping-related illnesses that have led to severe health consequences and dozens of deaths. I find it particularly concerning that an increased number of children in middle school and in high school are using these products, even though it is inconsistent with the law. It is against the law. The National Youth Tobacco Survey estimates that more than 5 million middle and high school students currently use e-cigarettes, up from 3.6 million last year. Five million middle and high school children are using this product that the law says they should not be using. Folks at home are certainly dealing with the fallout. Last year, 19 percent of Texas high school students had used an e-cigarette in the last 30 days, and news reports lead me to believe the number has done nothing but go up. Certainly, there are negative health consequences associated with it. A teen in Michigan was recently hospitalized, as my colleague from Michigan well knows. He was recently hospitalized after vaping and then had to have an incredibly rare double lung transplant because of the damage done to the lungs. This is causing alarm for parents, for educators, for health professionals, and just about everybody else who has heard about it. It certainly caught my attention. Yesterday the HELP Committee--the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--in the Senate held a hearing to look into the government's lackluster response to these public health concerns. I am seriously concerned with how, compared to traditional cigarettes, this industry is able to evade countless government regulations, especially through online sales. Consumers are able to purchase traditional cigarettes online, but there are clear guardrails in place to prevent minors from using online purchases to skirt the age restrictions. At the time of delivery, if you buy cigarettes online, you have to sign and show an ID proving your age. That just makes sense to me. You have to show ID when you purchase cigarettes at a gas station or convenience store, and buying them online should be no different, but in the case of e-cigarettes, it is different. Anyone, no matter how old or how young, could go online and buy e-cigarettes and have them delivered to your front door, no questions asked. You better believe underage kids are taking advantage of that loophole. A recent survey found that about one-third of underage e- cigarette users bought them online. What people need to understand is that e-cigarettes are essentially a nicotine delivery device. Nicotine, of course, is an addictive drug, so it is not as if there aren't negative health consequences. Even if they are not smoking tobacco, if they use e-cigarettes, there are true risks to the health of these young people. Now, while an adult, I believe, ought to be able to do things that maybe negatively impact their health, I think we have an obligation to protect children, particularly those who are making bad decisions, before they are prepared to understand what the consequences really are. So while it is important for us to understand the health impact of these devices and have serious conversations with our own children about the risks, we should do something to prevent children from getting their hands on e-cigarettes in the first place. I have introduced a bill with Senator Feinstein and Senator Van Hollen that prevents the online sale of e-cigarettes to minors using the same safeguards that stop them from being able to use regular cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products on the internet. The law is the same with regard to who can legally purchase them, so we ought to have the procedures in place that prevent underage smokers from buying cigarettes online without a signature and without an identification card proving their age. We ought to have the same procedures in place for e-cigarettes. This bill, thankfully, has broad bipartisan support, with one-quarter of all Senators serving as cosponsors, and it has recently passed the House by a voice vote. When we talk about passing consensus legislation in the Senate, this is about as easy as it comes. I hope we can bring this legislation to the Senate floor soon so we can prevent the next generation from using legal loopholes to get their hands on e-cigarettes. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his leadership. At a time when people see bipartisanship in short supply in Washington, DC, this is one area where we can actually make some real progress for the people we represent. We all know that climbing healthcare costs are keeping people up at night. Many people reached out to me in my office about the impossible decisions they are required to make in order to keep pace with rising prescription drug costs--particularly the out-of-pocket costs--whether they pay some bills and have to defer or not pay others; whether they cut their pills in half or self-ration the medications, which is dangerous to their health, or don't fill prescriptions altogether because they simply can't afford the out-of-pocket costs. No family should be required to make those sorts of decisions. Sadly, I know my constituents in Texas are not alone. The Kaiser Family Foundation poll in September found that the No. 1 healthcare concern of the American people is prescription drug prices. This is something the President has said he wants to address, the House has said they want to address, and the Senate has said we want to address, and this legislation we are talking about will help move the ball in the right direction. A whopping 70 percent of people think growing prescription drug costs should be the top priority for Congress, which should make it our No. 1 item on our to-do list. The good news is, we are making some progress. Here in the Senate, we have taken a bipartisan approach, which is the only way to actually get things done in Congress. We talked to every major player in the supply chain, and we asked questions about whether confusing practices that are not transparent to outsiders are all combining to drive up costs. What I find seriously concerning are the anti-competitive behaviors of some of the drug manufacturers, the gamesmanship, particularly when it comes to our patent system. We know companies pour a lot of time and money into the research and development of new medications, and we don't want to do anything to stop that. We want to incentivize that so that they are able to recover their costs and perhaps make a profit when the drug turns out to be successful. But we don't want them playing games with the patent system in a way that prevents others at some point, after that period of exclusivity, from being able to compete with a generic alternative. Ninety percent of the drugs we take are generic, and that is why they are so affordable and so inexpensive, but for the top 10 percent of branded drugs that people take, many of them simply are unaffordable. These patents I refer to do protect the intellectual property for these key drugs and are an important part of the incredible innovation that occurs here in the United States, but increasingly we are seeing companies using the patent system as a shield for competition beyond the life of the patent. It is time to put a stop to that. We can do that today. We can begin that process today. That is exactly why I introduced the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act with the Senator from Connecticut. It targets two specific practices used by drug companies to keep prices high. First is product hopping, which occurs when a company develops a reformulation of a product that is about to lose its exclusivity period and then pulls that original product off the market. This is done not because the new formula is necessarily more effective but because it prevents generic competitors for that product that has now been pulled off the market. The second phenomenon we are trying to combat is something called patent thicketing, which occurs when an innovator uses multiple, overlapping patents with identical claims to make it nearly impossible for competitors to enter the field. This is not how patents were supposed to be used, and we shouldn't allow these anti-competitive practices to continue. In one case involving the drug HUMIRA, the most popular drug being prescribed today, there are more than 120 separate patents for essentially the same molecule. Meanwhile, patients can't get access to competitive drugs that probably would be cheaper here in America, while there are four approved alternatives in Europe. The American people simply should not have to put up with this. We need to stop companies from manipulating the system and keeping competitors tied up in courtrooms so that patients can start to feel some relief. Patients aren't the only ones who would benefit from this bill. The Congressional Budget Office released a cost estimate and found that it would lower Federal spending by more than half a billion dollars over 10 years. That is not a whole lot of money in the grand scheme of things, but when you consider what the impact would be in the private insurance market, too, that begins to add up, and it adds up where it counts the most when it comes to seniors and other patients paying out of pocket for their copays and deductibles in order to get the drugs they need. This bill really checks every box. It protects innovation, increases competition, lowers prices for patients, and saves money for taxpayers. Not surprisingly, as the Senator from Connecticut pointed out, it has strong support on both sides of the aisle. The Judiciary Committee, which ordinarily is a pretty contentious place, unanimously voted this bill out of committee. Our friend from Illinois, Senator Durbin, and Senator Murray from Washington--two Members of the Democratic leadership--are both cosponsors of the bill, which shows just how noncontroversial this is. I think it is time that we pass this legislation and let our constituents know we have heard their concerns and we are committed on a bipartisan basis to bringing down drug prices. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 132, S. 1416. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute be withdrawn and the Cornyn amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, like the minority leader, I hope we are able to pass a larger bipartisan package this year. I serve on the Finance Committee--

Mr. CORNYN. After I am through.

Mr. CORNYN. I serve on the Finance Committee and on the Judiciary Committee, where this bill came from, and I know Senator Murray and Senator Alexander have a package out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I welcome the opportunity to have those bills come to the floor and to offer amendments and debate them and pass them because I agree that the country would benefit by bringing down healthcare costs, by bringing down prescription drug costs, and I believe that work is long overdue, but my bill is not going to sink the prospects of that larger package of legislation. What we have in front of us is an uncontested, bipartisan bill that we can pass today. Let's pass it. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. What I hear the minority leader saying is that it is either everything or nothing.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will yield for a question after I am through talking. When there is a statement, in effect, of ``I want everything to be done now or there will be nothing done at all,'' do you know what happens? Every single time that argument is made and that position is taken, nothing happens. Nothing happens. That is what people hate about Washington, DC, and when they look at C-SPAN, if they do look at C- SPAN, and see these debates. It is everything or nothing. The Democratic leader, who has now objected to the unanimous consent request to take up and pass a bill that he has called good and well- intentioned and has said is not large, has objected to it. I think the only people who would be rejoicing at this very moment would be the very same people who are gaming the patent system and who are keeping the out-of-pocket prices of prescription drugs high for seniors. Those are the people who are popping champagne corks right now because this is nothing more than a big, wet kiss for the people who are gaming the patent system right now to the detriment of the American people.

Mr. CORNYN. I yield to the Democratic leader.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say to my friend the Democratic leader that I support coverage for preexisting conditions, and I am not aware of anyone in the Senate who opposes it. If such a bill is scheduled for a vote on the floor, I will be more than happy to participate in that process.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in speaking through the Presiding Officer, I say to my friend that nothing gets done around here unless it is bipartisan. Right now, the bill that the House has sent us is one that divides people along party lines, which means it is unlikely we would build the bipartisan consensus we would need to get it done in the Senate. I am more than happy to engage in that debate and to vote on amendments on such a bill, but I am not going to agree to price-fixing by the U.S. Government, which will make more scarce and less available the lifesaving prescription drugs that many people need. Yet I am happy to engage in that debate, to vote, and to let the Senate and Congress work their will.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as always, I am happy to work with the Senator from New York on things on which we find our interests aligned. Obviously, there are going to be things on which we disagree. Frequently, there are. Yet he and I have worked together on legislation on which we have been able to find enough common interest to be able to build a consensus and get things done. They call that ``legislating'' around here. There are other things that we should be doing here on a bipartisan basis. For example, taking up and passing the appropriations bills, including the Defense appropriations bill, so our U.S. military can remain the most powerful, the best equipped, the best trained, and the best led military in the world. That is of overwhelming importance. Yet our colleagues on the other side have objected to and have blocked, on at least two occasions, that Defense appropriations bill. Now we have a short-term continuing resolution that expires this November 21. I am told or have read that there is likely to be a follow-on continuing resolution that takes us up to December 20, but that is important work, too, because none of us wants to see another government shutdown. No one wins with government shutdowns. This sort of gamesmanship that occurs by blocking bills that should have support by overwhelming bipartisan numbers in the Senate is important, too--things like paying the military, making sure that it maintains its readiness to fight and win the Nation's wars, and even more importantly, making sure it keeps the peace. I know the majority leader has a challenge in trying to figure out how to schedule legislation on the Senate floor, but it certainly doesn't help when our Democratic colleagues repeatedly object to things like appropriations bills and put us into this dysfunction when it comes to paying the Federal Government's bills. I would say to my friend from New York that I am always happy to work with him and with any other Member in the Senate, no matter what one's political party is and no matter what one's ideological persuasion is, because I actually believe we were sent here to solve problems and to get things done. What I dislike and what I am disappointed about is the dysfunction that we see in the U.S. Senate, whereby, even though it is less than a year before the election, politics have overwhelmed our ability to get things done. I came to the floor to say that maybe we can't do all of this right now, today, but we can do this, and let's build on it once we have gotten the bill passed. I am disappointed that the Democratic leader has seen fit to object to passing this bill that he himself called good and well-intended and that is supported by organizations like the American Association of Retired Persons. I do not understand it, but maybe somebody else does. Their saying that we can't do something because it doesn't include everything we want to do here, right now, is disappointing to me, and I don't think it is what the American people sent us here to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know my friend from Illinois, Senator Durbin, is sincere in his desire to get some relief for the DACA recipients, whose case is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. I share a desire to give them some certainty. That is why I supported what President Trump offered in February of 2018, which was a pathway to citizenship not only for the individuals who had applied for and received deferred action under President Obama's administration but for all those who were eligible but did not apply. What continues to confuse me is how our Democratic colleagues will routinely vote against that offer, which was incredibly generous. I don't think any other President in my lifetime would have had the boldness and the courage to offer a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million DACA-eligible young people, but President Trump did, and our Democratic colleagues turned it down. That leads me to wonder about their sincerity. Do they like this political issue more than they have a desire to find a solution to the problem? I agree that these young people, who through no fault of their own came to the United States because their parents brought them here, are the most sympathetic and deserving cohort of immigrants in the country. I wish we could work together to come up with a solution. But at some point you have to wonder whether our Democratic colleagues prefer not to solve the problem but would rather try to portray this as a political football for partisan advantage in the runup to the next election. That is tragic--toying with the lives of these young people, stoking their insecurity, telling them you are on their side but on the other hand voting against an offer to provide them a pathway toward citizenship. I don't know how you reconcile those two positions.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal, and I have come to a floor to offer a unanimous consent on a bill called the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act. We are in consultation with our colleagues on the other side that have another bill that they would also like to offer a unanimous consent request for, and we are going to talk and continue the conversation during these two upcoming votes to see if we can work out holds on their bill, and we certainly would consider to do that. But Senator Blumenthal and I do expect to offer a unanimous consent on our bill which would lower out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, which is something I thought we were all for. But working in good faith with our colleagues to try to work through these two issues, we are going to give it a little bit of time, as long as we can get that done before we leave today. I will just say there is no agreement to pair these. If they could pass sequentially, I have no objection to that, but just to say that it would be nice, at a time when we are so polarized here and have put the ``dys'' back in ``dysfunction'' here in Washington, DC, that we could actually show that we could work together in a bipartisan basis and pass a bill that passed unanimously in the Judiciary Committee, of which my friend from Illinois is a cosponsor. I understand they want to use this opportunity to get their bill passed. Again, I have no objection to that and do not intend to object, but there are others who apparently have some concerns that we need to check with.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 7 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 Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 7, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 7, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 7, 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 Thursday, November 7, 2019, at 11 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 Thursday, November 7, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Halil Suleyman Ozerden, of Mississippi, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, Steven J. Menashi, of New York, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, Barbara Lagoa and Robert J. Luck, both of Florida, both to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit, Sylvia Carreno-Coll, to be United States District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico, John M. Gallagher, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and Sherri A. Lydon, to be United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina. Committee on Rules and Administration The Committee on Rules and Administration is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 7, 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 Thursday, November 7, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thought it would be appropriate to come to the floor to celebrate the second anniversary of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. For years I heard from Texans who thought that the Tax Code was simply too complex, too burdensome, and that the Federal Government simply took too much of the fruits of their labor. They were absolutely correct. Our Tax Code hadn't been reformed in more than three decades, and Republican and Democratic Presidents have long pointed out how America was at a competitive disadvantage relative to other countries because of our Tax Code. Then, of course, there is the drag of high tax rates on our domestic economy--especially following the great recession during the Obama administration--which made jump-starting the economy a top priority last Congress. The good news is that we delivered. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered the individual tax rates across the board for every bracket. It increased the standard deduction, doubled the child tax credit, and made tax rates for businesses more competitive. Our goal was to make our Tax Code work for the American people, not the other way around. I know there are a lot of naysayers who said it wouldn't work. Some of them are still saying that. But I think the results speak for themselves. First, we saw waves of positive headlines announcing that companies big and small were using their tax savings to provide pay raises, pay bonuses, 401(k) match increases, and other benefits to their employees. I made a point of asking my constituents in Texas about their experience under the new Tax Code, and here is some of what I heard: Tejas Office Products is a Hispanic-owned and operated family business in Houston. They were able to hire more workers in Southeast Texas and expand their business as a result of their tax savings from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. There is American Bank in Corpus Christi. They projected that they could lend an additional $120 million over the next 5 years in the Coastal Bend, which was absolutely critical, especially following the natural disaster known as Hurricane Harvey. Then there is Happy State Bank, my favorite name for a bank--Happy State Bank--in Amarillo, which increased wages for more than 600 of its 700 employees. It upped their starting minimum wage and increased their dollar-for-dollar retirement plan match from 6 percent to 7 percent, all of which was good news. Well, it didn't take long for that good news in these anecdotal cases, for example, to translate into a much improved economy across the board, which helps everybody. We have seen rapid and consistent job growth with more than 4.3 million new jobs since tax reform became law--4.3 million new jobs. In September, the national unemployment rate fell to a 50-year low, and Texas unemployment remains below the national average at only 3.4 percent. The thing I hear the most from employers and job creators in Texas is that they can't find enough qualified workers to fill the good jobs that exist. We have one of the tightest labor markets in decades. Wages are going up as a result of competition for workers. The poverty rate has hit its lowest level since the turn of the century. American families are seeing more of their hard-earned dollars in each paycheck. Despite evidence to the contrary, we are still hearing from some of the same old critics who say that tax reform was a flop. The Atlantic, for example, published a story last week with the title ``The GOP Tax Cuts Didn't Work.'' The author claims that tax reform didn't live up to the hype and that because our economy didn't grow as much as some of the estimates believed it would, consecutive, positive growth is absolutely worthless. Well, that doesn't make any sense at all--not to mention the fact that economic growth has outpaced even the forecast of the Congressional Budget Office prior to tax reform. This author also mentions that the Institute for Supply Management-- or ISM--manufacturing index dipped in September. But the ISM manufacturing index is a survey of purchasing managers who may be swayed by sentiment as much as actual activity. We have seen this index at a similar level before, and the economy continued to grow. In addition, the critic in this article points to declining exports as a factor in this, despite the fact that our trade deficit fell 4.7 percent in September. The critics still refuse to admit the connection between increased consumer spending and Americans bringing home more in each paycheck. In other words, they are trying to cherry-pick the evidence and ignore any evidence that the American people have benefited from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In fact, the critics--who I think are more concerned about an agenda than they are the economy or the welfare of the working American family--continue to try to paint a picture of doom and gloom of our Nation's economy to further that political agenda. It was not that long ago when some were even highlighting that tax refunds were reduced because of tax reform. It is a bogus measurement of tax relief. We know that at the end of the day, the data showed the average refund check was not that different from the previous year. Wouldn't you want your tax refund to be lower because you were simply paying less withholding each month? That is an interest-free loan to the Federal Government. Well, while we seem to have moved beyond that argument, we are now on to the next one. Our Democratic colleagues point out that some companies are using their savings for stock buybacks and try to portray this as a corporate blood thirst, claiming it hurts workers in the economy. But by repurchasing their own shares, companies are reinvesting in themselves and their shareholders. Many times, this is teachers or police officers or other first responders. Interfering with stock buybacks, as some of our friends across the aisle have recommended, would not only hurt our economy, but would do serious damage to the pension and retirement accounts of many working Texans and other Americans. The message of these partisan critics is: The government can spend your money better and more wisely than you can. But Washington cannot even manage its own books and uses ``smoke-and-mirrors'' accounting measures that would make even Bernie Madoff blush. But that is only the start of the concerning proposals that we have heard from the folks on the left. Our colleague from Massachusetts said if she wins the Presidency, she will soak the American taxpayer even more in an attempt to fund her completely unworkable healthcare proposal. The differences are pretty stark in the approach: pro-growth, job- creating, economy-growing policies or Big Government, even socialist policies. Those seem to be the two most obvious choices. I know what camp I am in, and I know what camp that Texans are in on this topic. This constant effort to belittle the progress we have made because of tax reform reminds me of when Nancy Pelosi compared the savings of the American people under tax reform to ``crumbs.'' She called them ``crumbs.'' One Texan named Mark told me that his take-home pay increased $302 a month. That may be crumbs to Nancy Pelosi, but Mark said it would cover his cable, his internet, and his auto insurance bills. He doesn't consider that crumbs. Another gentleman named Gilbert told me that he and his wife are retired and living on pensions. When they saw a decrease in their Federal tax deduction that allows them to bring home an additional $400 a month, they said at first they thought it was a mistake, until they learned it was true and, good news, $400 a month more. A retired Air Force colonel from Brownsville named David told me that the benefit seems like more than ``crumbs'' to him. But I have no doubt that here in this hyper-politicized environment of Washington, DC, that pundits and folks on the left will continue to try to criticize tax reform and belittle the progress that we have made, but those Texans who are reaping the benefits of this law every day are proof positive that they are wrong and that the law is working as we intended. Despite what I hear from folks on the left, this is an incredible time for our economy. We have made taxes simpler, fairer, and lower for hard-working American families. And we will keep working to remove the regulatory burdens that will help unleash the power of the free market. For more than 150 years, we have been the world's largest economy, and because of pro-growth policies like tax reform, that will only continue to get better. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I return to the floor again this week to discuss Congress's progress on important legislation--or, rather, the lack of it--since the obsession with impeaching the President began. When the House decided to proceed full steam ahead on impeachment, they promised that it wouldn't interfere with our ability to get other important work done for our constituents. While it has been less than a week since the House formally authorized their impeachment inquiry, the crusade to impeach the President and remove him started nearly 3 years ago. For example, on January 20, which was actually Inauguration Day, 2017, at 12:19 p.m. the Washington Post ran the story with the headline ``The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun.'' That was on Inauguration Day in 2017. Nineteen minutes into his Presidency, the writing wasn't only on the wall. It was on the front page of the Washington Post. Our Democratic friends are on a kamikaze mission to get President Trump out of office less than a year before the next election, and, in the process, they are preventing Congress from solving the big problems facing the American people. The latest casualty of this impeach-at-all-costs strategy is a bill I introduced with my Democratic colleague from Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, called the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act. This legislation would lower the cost of Americans' prescription medication and save more than a half billion dollars in taxpayer money. Here, in the Senate, it counts the Democratic whip, Senator Durbin from Illinois, as well as the Assistant Democratic Leader, Senator Murray from Washington State, as cosponsors. With that kind of lineup, you would think this would be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, drug pricing legislation isn't the only consensus effort that has gotten caught up in impeachment mania. For a quarter of a century, the Violence Against Women Act has provided resources to assist women who are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Unsurprisingly, this program has consistently maintained broad bipartisan support. There is agreement that we must do more to provide services and protection for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, but it is safe to say that there are disagreements on how best to accomplish that goal. Those differences in opinion came to a head in February of this year. We were fresh off the heels of the longest government shutdown in history and working to fund the government through the remainder of the year, but our Democratic colleagues threw a curve ball when they insisted that we should not include a temporary extension of the Violence Against Women Act, which had expired in September of 2018. Even amid the political jockeying we have been seeing in this Congress, this was a shocking omission. Republicans were in favor of a short-term reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act to provide time and space for bipartisan negotiations for a long-term reauthorization. Surprisingly, our Democratic colleagues in the House blocked this reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. So it expired. Fortunately, though, our friends on the Appropriations Committee have continued to fully fund these programs, but the authorizing statute has expired because of this gamesmanship. Despite continued bipartisan negotiations led by the Senator from Iowa, Ms. Ernst, over the last 8 months, we haven't been able to come up with a consensus agreement to reauthorize the program on a long-term basis. This has been an 8-month negotiation. This isn't all that complicated. We should be able to do it in the space of an afternoon, but, clearly, there is no desire to get this resolved. Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act is a top priority for Members on both sides of the aisle, and I hope we will work harder to make it happen rather than to use this important law to play partisan political games. Sadly, the Violence Against Women Act is not the only program to get caught up in the political crosshairs. The Debbie Smith Act, another traditionally bipartisan bill here in the Senate, expired at the end of September because of the refusal of the House to take up the Senate-passed version and to send it to the President. The Debbie Smith Act, you will recall, provides funding to State and local crime labs to test DNA evidence and reduce the rape kit backlog. The Senate unanimously passed the bill in May to reauthorize this program, but the House simply refused to act. At a roundtable I held in Houston, a few months ago, I heard from rape victims and their advocates about how troubling and, frankly, how insulting all of this was. After months, the House has now finally relented and voted to reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act, after the pressure on them became unbearable. I am glad they changed their minds, and I am hopeful we can get this bill to the President's desk soon. Although I would have welcomed less drama this time around, the Debbie Smith Act reauthorization will hopefully be an example of what Congress can accomplish when you put partisan political fights aside and work for our constituents; in other words, do the job we were elected to do when our constituents sent us here. It is really disappointing that some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would rather relitigate the 2016 election--again, less than a year before the next election--rather than do the work of the American people. This obsession with impeachment mania has consumed our Democratic colleagues and is preventing us from getting work done on a nonpartisan basis. That is what our constituents want us to do. Texans are worried about high prescription costs, worried about the state of our roads and bridges, and worried about our national security. In the case of the Democratic leader, I would be willing to wager that New Yorkers are worried about many of these issues too. So it is time to stop the partisan games. They don't result in pay raises for our troops, which have now been voted against two times by our Democratic colleagues. They don't advance victims' rights and give justice to survivors like the reauthorization of the Debbie Smith Act and the Violence Against Women Act would do. They don't increase the public's trust in our institutions of government and assure them that we really have their best interests at heart. Definitely, these games don't help make Americans' lives better. We have heard our Democratic colleagues say ad nauseam that impeachment will not interfere with their ability to legislate, but the evidence suggests otherwise. What Americans want is action. What Americans want is for us to do our job. We can give them what they want by allowing legislation we know has a chance of becoming law, such as my drug pricing bill, the Debbie Smith Act, and the Violence Against Women Act, to come to the floor, get passed, and sent to the President. That would be doing our jobs, and I believe that is what our constituents want from each of us--not this single-minded obsession with impeachment that started the day the President was sworn into office, less than 1 year before the next election. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the end of the fiscal year for the U.S. Government came and went without a new funding bill in place. It was a big disappointment because this summer I thought we had reached an agreement on a 2-year budget package designed to make the appropriations process much simpler and eliminate the uncertainty that comes from continuing resolutions and stop-start funding for government agencies. We agreed to topline funding for defense and nondefense spending. It was a big deal. There was also a promise not to derail the process with poison pill policy riders, and we got it done with plenty of time to spare. I remember at the time thinking, hey, maybe we can help restore some regular order and put the function back in Congress rather than the dysfunction. But, unfortunately, politics got in the way. When the time came last month to make good on the promises that were made during that 2-year budget cap deal, Senate Democrats blocked a bill to fund our national defense. You heard me right. Senate Democrats blocked the appropriations for our national defense. If there is one thing we should make a priority here in Washington, DC, it is protecting our country, keeping our men and women in uniform adequately trained with the equipment and the resources they need in order to fight and win the Nation's wars, and, even better, to prevent a war from being fought in the first place. But our Democratic colleagues simply blocked it. It wasn't a disagreement over the amount. No, it was something they had already agreed to last summer. They blocked the bill because, frankly, they don't want President Trump to have any sort of wins here, even when it undermines our national security. It was a remarkable show of priorities. Their animosity toward the President exceeded their desire to see funding flow to the men and women in uniform and to defend the Nation. We could have provided our troops with the largest pay raise in a decade. We could have sent vital funding to our military as they battle looming threats around the world. We could have put the appropriations process back on track and restored the basic functioning of Congress. But, no, our Democratic colleagues chose to put politics ahead of any of that. With our only options being a government shutdown or a short-term funding bill, we chose the lesser of two evils. But it is still evil in the sense that it is much less than we should be doing to serve the Nation and serve our constituents. We pushed the deadline, and we kicked the can down the road to November 21. We hoped our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have a change of heart, but now they have proved us wrong. Democrats have blocked money for the military again and again. This is beginning to feel like ``Groundhog Day.'' They continue choosing to put their ongoing feud with the President before our most important responsibility as a Congress: to provide for the common defense. As if we needed to be reminded of the importance of our strong military, earlier this week, our highly skilled Special Forces troops took out the leader of ISIS, one of the most feared and dangerous terrorist leaders in the world. That terrorist is no longer a threat, thanks to the men and women of our military--Special Forces, in particular. It was a tremendous victory for the United States and for our allies and underscored the need for us to continue to support our troops by funding the Defense bill. For our forces to continue fighting and risking death and injury itself while defeating evil in every corner of the world, they need our support, and there is no more tangible way to demonstrate that support than for Congress to pass this funding bill. We also know, because of the need to plan, they need stability. They need a long-term funding bill and not just to stop-start, kick the can down the road a few weeks, and then come back and refight the same fights over and over and over again. That is really a pathetic response to our duty to help support our men and women in uniform. They need the unwavering support of every man and woman in this Chamber. But, right now, our Democratic colleagues seem content just to say no, to get in the way, and to block this funding. Will they pay any price for doing that? I don't know. They don't seem to really particularly care. I have no doubt that this obstruction is tied to the obsession that the House of Representatives has to remove President Trump from office. We have heard over and over again from our Democratic colleagues that impeachment will not interfere with their ability to legislate and to get work done, but their actions speak louder than words. While I think the decision to block defense funding is the most egregious example so far, it is far from the only one. The extent to which they will go to try to defeat and slow down and impede the President and anything he might be able to point to as a victory--here is another example. It has been more than a year since the landmark trade agreement between Mexico and Canada was announced, but we are still waiting for Speaker Pelosi to show the green light and pass the USMCA and send it to the Senate, where I am sure it will pass overwhelmingly. This agreement will provide billions of dollars in economic growth, new jobs here at home, and greater stability for our economy, but we haven't been able to reap those benefits because the agreement is being stalled in the House. Well, why is that? Well, it could be because they are obsessed with and preoccupied with impeachment, and they can't seem to get anything else done. The Speaker claims progress is being made, but it has been the same song and dance for months with nothing to show for it. In the Senate, unfortunately, things aren't a lot different. A bill I introduced with our Democratic colleague, Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut, to reduce drug prices, has gotten caught in the crosshairs of this partisan fighting too. This bill has broad bipartisan support. It would lower Federal spending by more than one-half billion dollars in over 10 years. It would also save consumers out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs. According to Politico, the Democratic leader is blocking the bill, despite the fact that folks in both parties in Congress, as well as the President, have said that they are eager to pass legislation to reduce drug prices. The Democratic leader will not let it come to the floor. To me, this is the greatest example of our dysfunction here: When the President is for something, when Democrats are for something, when Republicans are for something, when the House is for something, when the Senate is for something, we still can't seem to get it done. That is a hard one to explain. Sadly, the list doesn't stop there. Here is another example. Earlier this year, the Senate unanimously-- unanimously--passed a bill I introduced to reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act. This program supplies funding to State and local crime labs to test DNA, or forensic evidence, and to reduce the rape kit backlog. It is about as nonpartisan an issue as they come. Unfortunately, that didn't make it immune from the gamesmanship in the House. After months of refusing to act on this bill, we sent it over--I think it was in May. They did nothing for a long time, and they allowed the Debbie Smith Act to expire. When something as noncontroversial as reducing the rape kit backlog gets politicized, you know you are in trouble. Well, I was finally glad to see last week that the House changed its tune, thanks to a lot of pressure both from within and without, because their refusal to reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act and this critical rape kit backlog funding was indefensible. So I am hopeful we can get that bill to the President's desk now after this long and unnecessary delay. We all knew that the Democratic obsession with removing the President from office began before he was inaugurated, but no one expected it to get this far out of hand or for the dysfunction to be so pervasive. Their impeach-at-any-cost attitude has now brought the work of Congress to a screeching halt. Legislation is collecting cobwebs in the corner while our Democratic colleagues are conducting secret hearings behind closed doors in an effort to reverse the 2016 election. While they are continuing this charade here in Washington, their constituents are likely wondering what it is their elected representatives are doing to make their lives better at home. Are they passing bills to bring down drug prices, like the bill I have with Senator Blumenthal? Are they trying to strengthen the economy by improving trading relationships among Mexico, Canada and the United States? Are they passing legislation to support our men and women in the military? I am sad to say that for our Democratic colleagues, the answer to each of those questions is no--no time for tackling the big problems but plenty of time for the politics of trying to remove the President from office, 1 year before the next general election. Speaker Pelosi knows this is going to divide the country, and it is going to occupy everyone's attention here in Washington, DC, until it is concluded, and she also knows that the likelihood of getting 66 votes in the Senate to convict the President and to remove him is incredibly unlikely. It has never happened in our Nation's history, even though President Nixon did resign. No previous President who has been impeached has actually been convicted and removed from office. The inability to separate their obsession with the President from their duties here in Congress should be embarrassing. Impeachment may consume the news cycle, but it shouldn't stop all of us from working together in the best interests of our constituents and the American people. I hope our Democratic colleagues will reconsider. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, so far, the 116th Congress has been full of a number of dubious measures, as I might characterize them, by our friends across the aisle as it relates to our healthcare system. For starters, our Democratic colleagues in the Senate and the House and on the Presidential campaign trail are hailing Medicare for All as the gold standard for healthcare in America. I was here during the debates over the Affordable Care Act, and I remember President Obama's saying, if you like your policy, you can keep it and that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Neither one of those proved to be correct and true. Yet, here, our Democratic colleagues have simply given up all pretense and have embraced a Medicare for All Program that would outlaw some 180 million Americans' private health insurance policies. In other words, the policy you get through your employer as part of the fringe benefits of your employment would no longer be available under Medicare for All. This is, of course, socialized medicine, which ensures long waits for substandard care. Yes, it is true that I have heard some say: ``Well, it is Medicare for All. Who would want it?'' and others say: ``No. I am for the public option.'' Both of these are slippery slopes into a single-payer, socialized medicine healthcare system that will deny consumers the choices they might prefer to make for themselves rather than to leave the government to make those choices for them. Not only would this trigger a lot of disruption, it would also lead to sharp increases in taxes to fund this, roughly, $30 trillion pipedream. Last month, Speaker Pelosi managed to take this debate on healthcare to the next level. It seems like controlling people's healthcare alone isn't enough. Now they want to run the drug industry too. Forget about choice. Forget about competition. Forget about innovation. One of the things that has characterized the American healthcare system is the lifesaving innovation of drugs. The Democrats want to now have the Federal Government determine what the formulary is, what drugs are available to you. They want to set the prices and ensure the bureaucrats rather than families are at the center of our healthcare system. They are churning out partisan healthcare bills, one after another, and taking their party further and further to the left with every move. I would like to think, ultimately, cooler heads will prevail in the Senate, where we have been working on bipartisan bills to bring down healthcare costs. For example, the Senate's Judiciary, Finance, and HELP Committees have each passed bipartisan packages of bills to end surprise billing so as to create more transparency when it comes to pharmaceuticals and increased competition, but that doesn't mean this side of the Capitol is immune from some of the politics when it comes to our healthcare system. Rather than following the Speaker's lead in introducing partisan bills, the Democratic leader in the Senate has taken a different tack, that of blocking bipartisan consensus bills. For example, there is a bill I introduced earlier this year with our colleague from Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, to bring down skyrocketing drug prices. Senator Blumenthal is a Democrat, and I am a Republican, but contrary to what you may see in the media, that doesn't mean we can't talk to each other or work together in the best interests of our constituents. Because Senator Blumenthal and I both sit on the Committee on the Judiciary, we have been looking at the price hikes that have been caused by people who game the patent system, specifically something called patent thicketing. Some drugmakers build a web of patents that is so intricate it is virtually impossible for competition to go to market even when the patent on the underlying drug has expired or will expire soon. They use these so-called patent thickets to hold competitors at bay and keep prices high for as long as possible. This is something Senator Blumenthal and I are trying to stop through our bill, the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act. This legislation would disarm those patent thickets and streamline litigation by limiting the number of patents companies can use so competition can go to market sooner. This legislation passed the Senate's Judiciary Committee in June without having a single member on either side of the aisle vote against it. It was unanimous, which is something that doesn't happen all that often in the Committee on the Judiciary. In the past, something with this level of support would have quickly sailed through the full Senate but not today, not on the minority leader's watch. According to a report in POLITICO, the minority leader is blocking this bipartisan bill. With the House Democrats' obsession of impeaching the President and, apparently, their interest in accomplishing nothing else, the odds of bipartisan legislation getting done around here are getting slimmer and slimmer each day. Rather than seizing the opportunity to pass a bill that will provide relief to the folks we represent who struggle with the high costs of prescriptions, it is politics 24/7. I am disappointed in our colleagues' single-minded obsession with undoing the 2016 election and removing the President from office. One of the casualties of that, though, is the prevention of our being able to pass even bipartisan bills to help the American people, the people we represent. I ask here, publicly today, for the minority leader to reconsider his decision of blocking this bipartisan piece of legislation. I am afraid the vote our Democratic colleagues have just forced us to take this afternoon shows just how far they are willing to go to prove a point, even when the point is not well made, which leaves me with little optimism that the minority leader will have a change of heart. As we have heard, the Affordable Care Act has what is known as State innovation waivers. That is part of what we voted on just a moment ago. It is important to reiterate that these innovation waivers, which were a part of the Affordable Care Act, enable States to waive some of the law's burdensome requirements in pursuit of finding alternative means of coverage. States can apply for these waivers to change how insurance subsidies are used, for example, and select a combination that better fits their States' and their citizens' needs. What works in a State as big as mine, with 28 million citizens, isn't, maybe, going to work in the same way as in a smaller State--North Dakota or Delaware. Washington bureaucrats shouldn't be able to decide what best suits the needs of my constituents in Texas. That is why these waivers, which are part of the Affordable Care Act, are so important and why, last year, the administration gave the States more flexibility to tailor their insurance plans to suit their constituents' needs. This does not mean, as we have heard, that the States have an entirely free hand. It just gives them more flexibility to use Federal dollars where they are needed most. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues are opposed to these expanded innovation options. They claim they forced this vote to repeal the rule because it puts patients' coverage for preexisting conditions at risk, but that is not true. Section No. 1332 does not allow States to waive ObamaCare's preexisting conditions' coverage. In fact, these waivers give States the ability to provide enhanced support for those with preexisting conditions and high healthcare costs. So far, 13 States have been approved for these waivers. It is worth noting on this chart the 1332 waivers that have been issued this year. Colorado has seen a reduction in premiums by 16 percent; Delaware by 13 percent; Montana by 8 percent; North Dakota by a whopping 20 percent; and Rhode Island by 6 percent. So with preexisting conditions covered, and with premiums actually going down, what is there to object to? Well, our Democratic colleagues are simply waging a war against a problem that does not exist, but I guess if you say it often enough and loudly enough, some people, somewhere, may just believe that coverage of preexisting conditions is somehow a partisan issue. It is not. They are grasping at straws as their party unfortunately has gone further and further to the left on healthcare. Well, 10 of the 13 States that received waivers are represented by at least one Democrat in the Senate. Why would you vote for a repeal of a rule consistent with existing law that would lower premiums for your constituents which would require coverage for preexisting conditions unless it is your good sense overcome by perhaps politics? Our Democratic friends make it seem like coverage of preexisting conditions is a partisan issue when it is not. We all agree that patients with preexisting conditions should receive health coverage, period. Earlier this year, I cosponsored a bill introduced by our friend, the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Tillis, called the PROTECT Act, which would reaffirm our commitment that no American will ever be denied health coverage due to a preexisting condition. We believe that coverage for preexisting conditions shouldn't hang in the balance of a court decision. It would finally codify what every Member of this body says they agree with: That all Americans deserve access to health coverage, specifically to cover preexisting conditions. All this rule by the Trump administration does is provide the States with the flexibility to cater to their citizens' healthcare needs, and there simply was no reason to overturn it, and we did not. So I would encourage our colleagues to stop daydreaming about pie in the sky ideas like Medicare for All--simply unaffordable, absolutely unworkable--or a government-run pharmaceutical industry where the government sets the prices and says what drugs you or your family can get access to. Quit trying to fight the President at every turn and every step he wants to make. Try to find places where we can work together, and let's do that by moving bipartisan legislation that will lower out-of-pocket costs for drugs and improve people's quality of life and standard of living. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 7 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 Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 30, 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, October 30, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of John Joseph Sullivan, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the Russian Federation, Department of State. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 30, 2019, at 1O a.m., to conduct a hearing following nominations: Patrick J. Bumatay, of California, and Lawrence VanDyke, of Nevada, both to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, Philip M. Halpern, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, and Barbara Bailey Jongbloed, to be United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut Subcommittee on Water and Power The Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 30, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management The Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 30, 2019, at 1:45 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Health Care The Subcommittee on Health Care of the Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 30,2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Intellectual Property The Subcommittee on Intellectual Property of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 30, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this isn't part of the remarks I had planned for, but let me just surprise the Senator from Ohio and say I agree with him. We need to pass a transportation bill. He mentioned some of the union workers he was talking to this morning, and they want Congress to function as it should, which means we should pass our appropriations bills, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill that the Senator from Maine is the bill manager on. We ought to do all of our appropriations bills, including keeping our commitment to our men and women in the military by passing the Defense appropriations bill. Unfortunately, we know that politics has overwhelmed our ability to function here in Congress, and the Democrats, for some reason, decided to filibuster the Defense appropriations bill just recently. What I worry about is this obsession with politics and dividing the Nation 12 months before the next general election, when everybody who is a registered voter will have a chance to vote on the next President of the United States. We are going to let that dominate our discussions to the failure of our ability to actually pass appropriations bills, fund the military, and fund a highway bill, which would provide much needed infrastructure development all across our country, including the fast-growing States like those the Presiding Officer and I happen to come from. So I hope that the growing sense I have that we are simply going to quit functioning a year out before the election, because of the obsession over politics and impeachment mania, does not prove to be true. But the storm clouds are on the horizon, and I am becoming increasingly convinced that, unfortunately, that is the only thing Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats care about, and our ability to actually get our work done is going to be tragically squandered. Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Mr. President, let me talk about some good news. Of course, this weekend, the world celebrated as the hunt for the leader of ISIS--the latest terrorist organization that has dominated the news--finally came to an end, and President Trump announced the successful raid by U.S. troops that led to the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the world's No. 1 terrorist. This, of course, is reminiscent of that effort under the Obama administration to take out Osama Bin Laden years after he led the effort to kill 3,000 Americans on 9/11 in New York and here in Washington at the Pentagon. With the elimination of the ISIS caliphate earlier this year, it was only a matter of time before al-Baghdadi would run out of places to hide. I want to say how much I admire and appreciate the courage and the dedication of the men and women who contributed to this raid and who actually made it happen. This is an amazing combination of talent, training, intelligence, and cooperation with our partners in the Middle East that led to this incredible and successful effort. I am grateful to our military leaders, our intelligence professionals, our servicemembers, and our allies who have been tirelessly working for this goal for years. I applaud President Trump for making the difficult decision to put American troops in harm's way. Fortunately, it did not result in any loss of life or injuries, I am told, for the troops who actually executed the raid, but let's give credit where credit is due. Just as President Obama deserved credit for making the difficult decision to take out Obama Bin Laden, President Trump should be entitled to credit for making the difficult but important and correct decision to take out ISIS's leader. Because of the decisive action and flawless execution of troops on the ground, it was a great day for freedom-loving people and for all Americans that the world's No. 1 most wanted man was brought to justice. Coincidentally, yesterday, I was in Austin speaking to the Mortgage Bankers Association, and Admiral McRaven came on right after me. It was an amazing coincidence and a real treat for the mortgage bankers who, after I got through talking to them, got to hear from the man who led the raid that brought down Osama bin Laden in 2011. It was a remarkable moment to reflect on our Nation's ongoing fight to eradicate terrorism and the great leaders and the great professionals who have contributed to our efforts to keep America safe. It is important that we all remember that the fight is not yet won and that it actually may never be finally concluded. We must remain committed to working with our allies in the region and around the world to continue to eliminate terrorism wherever we can and prevent its resurgence. As I indicated earlier, later this week, the Senate will begin voting on spending bills to fund the Department of Defense so that they can continue this fight, and it would be ironic, indeed, if our Democratic colleagues thwarted our efforts to fund the Department of Defense once again in the wake of this incredible accomplishment by those professionals. Last month, Democrats blocked us from even considering the defense spending bill. They decided their seemingly never-ending disputes with President Trump transcend national security. I hope this weekend's announcement has brought this decision into some perspective. We need to quickly pass the defense spending bill to ensure that our military will not be impacted by these political games. Healthcare Mr. President, on another matter, I continue to hear from my constituents back home about the number of Texans who are struggling to cover the cost of their prescription medication. We know that deductibles, particularly under the Affordable Care Act, have gotten to be very high. As a matter of fact, it is not uncommon to hear people say that they have a deductible of $5,000 or more. The copays they have to pay for prescription drugs, strangely enough, in their deductible--the $5,000 you would have to pay under your Affordable Care Act policy--they get none of the benefit of the negotiated discount or rebates that the drug companies get with prescription pharmacy benefit managers. That does not flow to the consumer. Actually, consumers are being treated much worse than the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies are and deriving virtually no benefit. I have heard stories. We had one particularly profound story about a woman whose son is diabetic. He became an adult, and she described how purchasing his insulin affected many of his decisions, such as moving out of the house, getting a job, whether or not to marry, basically because he had to manage the high cost of the copay for the insulin that was necessary to preserve his life. Unfortunately, as in many cases, people end up self-rationing their drugs to make them last longer, and that is at a great health risk to them, to skip doses or to take less or to otherwise not follow their doctor's orders. People are frustrated and confused. They are increasingly worried about how they and their loved ones are going to continue to cover these rising costs, and they want to know what Congress intends to do about it. I frequently tell the folks back home that the most frustrating moments in Washington, DC, are when the White House and Congress agree and when Republicans and Democrats agree that something is a problem and needs to be done, but nothing gets done. That is a hard one to explain. Everybody says yes, we need to deal with high prescription drug costs, but we don't seem to be capable of getting things done. I am always happy to share updates about the progress we make within our committees, such as the Finance and Judiciary Committees I serve on. Unfortunately, when it comes to getting a bill across the floor of the U.S. Senate, it has proved to be an insurmountable challenge. We have spent a lot of time hearing from patients, healthcare providers, drugmakers, and other experts about prescription drug costs, and it is admittedly a very complex topic, but I think a lot of the folks involved in the business sort of enjoy that black box they operate in and they are afraid of the transparency that would actually reveal who is getting the money and why it is that the savings don't flow to consumers. We have been looking at every stop a drug takes in route, from research and development to the shelf of your medicine cabinet. We have seen some things that are pretty alarming. There are pharmaceutical CEOs earning big bonuses, of course, as sales go up. I am not opposed to CEOs getting paid well for new lifesaving and innovative drugs, but I am if they do it at the expense of consumers. We have seen pharmacy benefit managers who negotiate backdoor rebates and drive up out-of- pocket costs. Of course, there are also pharmaceutical companies that game the patent system to stave off competition as long as possible. In one of our Finance Committee hearings, I was able to ask the CEO of AbbVie about their product HUMIRA, which is the most commonly prescribed drug in America today, I believe. It is the poster child for the kind of gamesmanship that I think ought to infuriate all of us. HUMIRA is a wonderful drug. It is used to treat arthritis and a number of other conditions, and it has been available for about 15 years. One might think that would be sufficient time to cover the patent period and that a more generic or biosimilar alternative might be available, which would be cheaper, much to the benefit of consumers. You would be wrong. AbbVie currently has 136 patents and 247 applications on HUMIRA. In fact, the maze of patents on HUMIRA is so complex that there is no biosimilar available in America. This jumbled network of patents makes it nearly impossible for a competitor to come into the market. To date, there are five competitors to HUMIRA in Europe--five--but not in America, not to the benefit of American consumers. All of these five competitors that sell a biosimilar alternative to HUMIRA in Europe are blocked from selling it in the United States until 2023. That is not an accident. Again, I don't begrudge companies that discover lifesaving and innovative drugs getting the coverage of a patent for the appropriate period of time because that is where they recoup their research and development costs, and unfortunately not all of these drug discoveries turn out with a good story. But this strikes me as gamesmanship and an abuse of the system. Patents were intended to guard intellectual property and encourage researchers to pour time and resources into developing these new drugs. These drugmakers aren't just using the patent system to protect their intellectual property; they are abusing it, to the detriment of consumers, to increase their bottom line. Earlier this year, I introduced a bill with our colleague from Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, to take aim at this practice. The Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act disarms the so-called patent thickets to enable competitors to come to market sooner. This bill streamlines the litigation process by limiting the number of patents these companies can use so companies can spend less time in the courtroom. Competitors would be able to resolve patent issues faster and bring their drugs to market sooner. Better competition, I am convinced, means better prices for patients. Our country is a leader in pharmaceutical innovation, partly because we offer robust protection for intellectual property. And that is a good thing, but we have to do more to stop the bad actors taking advantage of those innovation protections in order to maintain their monopoly at the expense of the American people. That is exactly what the legislation I have introduced with Senator Blumenthal would do. By the way, it passed unanimously out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act doesn't stifle innovation, it doesn't limit patent rights, and it doesn't cost taxpayers a dime. In fact, just the opposite is true. The Congressional Budget Office released a cost estimate for this bill and found that it would lower spending by more than half a billion dollars over 10 years. And that is just savings to the Federal Government for Medicare and Medicaid; there undoubtedly would be additional savings for consumers in their private health insurance. Despite the fact that this legislation received the unanimous support of the Judiciary Committee in June, it has yet to make it to the Senate floor for a vote. As it turns out, I am informed that the minority leader, the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, is leading the charge in blocking the Senate's ability to consider that bill. Our colleague the minority leader loves to say that the Senate is a legislative graveyard because we haven't voted on a number of ultrapartisan bills passed by the House, but when it comes to passing the bills that actually have bipartisan support--bills that could actually pass both Chambers and become law--it looks as though the minority leader has become the gravedigger-in-chief. Why he would refuse to allow a vote on a bill cosponsored by one of his own Members that would lower drug costs for patients across the country and save more than half a billion dollars over 10 years for taxpayers is beyond me. It seems like a no-brainer. Again, I am afraid that politics may have once again interfered with our Democratic colleague's interest in making sound public policy. While our Democratic colleagues continue their crusade to remove the President from office, the American people's lives aren't getting any easier. Their lives aren't on hold such that they could just simply wait out the politics that seems to crowd out good public policy in Washington, DC. We know for sure that their prescription medications aren't getting any cheaper. So I would urge our colleague, the Senate minority leader, to quit blocking the bipartisan bill I have discussed today so that our constituents--all of our constituents--in Texas, New York, Maine, and all over the country can begin to enjoy some relief from their mounting out-of-pocket drug costs. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, we are rapidly approaching the 1-year mark since President Trump and the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Mexico signed a new trade agreement to strengthen our economies. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, will replace NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, and continue to guide trade with our northern and southern neighbors in the future. It is estimated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that the number of jobs in the United States that have been created directly as a result of trade with Mexico ranges around the 5 million figure, with another 8 million from binational with Canada, so this is no small matter. Since NAFTA was enacted in 1994, a lot has changed. The way we communicate and the way we shop and even go about our daily lives rely heavily on technology that didn't exist 25 years ago. Make no mistake--NAFTA has been a huge benefit to our country, and Texas has arguably benefited more than any other State. In 2018, Texas exported nearly $110 billion in goods to Mexico, and we imported $107 billion worth of goods from Mexico. When you consider actions being taken by China to counter our interests all over the world, our reliance on North American partners has become increasingly important. That only underscores the need to ratify the USMCA and strengthen our trading relationship to ensure we are not left behind as the global economy continues to evolve. The USMCA is the most significant update to U.S. trade policy in a generation and will propel our growing economy into the 21st century. It takes into account businesses and practices that didn't exist when NAFTA was created, such as 2-day shipping, online microretailers, and digital products like eBooks and music. It also requires Canada and Mexico to raise their de minimis shipment value levels, meaning additional classes of shipments can enter all three countries with expedited entry procedures. That is a big win for small and medium- sized businesses, which often lack the resources to pay customs duties and taxes. The USMCA prohibits restrictions on the cross-border movement of data. It increases goods market access. It supports small businesses. It boosts digital trade and safeguards intellectual property and supports agriculture. It also keeps jobs here at home. In short, this trade agreement is a big win for the American people. Some even argue that the USMCA is more important than restoring our normalized trading relationship with China. Earlier this year, the International Trade Commission provided insight into what we could expect to see once the USMCA is ratified. Within 6 years, they say, we are looking at 176,000 new American jobs and an increase in the gross domestic product by more than $68 billion. That is a bigger impact than the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. The USMCA is expected to have a positive impact on every industry sector in the U.S. economy. We can look forward to a more than $43 billion increase in exports and more than $31 billion in imports. That is great news for North American workers, farmers, ranchers, and business men and women who will reap the benefits of this agreement. When I am meeting with my constituents back home or here in Washington, one of the most common questions I get asked is, ``When is the USMCA going to pass?'' Mexico has already ratified the agreement, and Canada is waiting for us to move before acting. The agreement has broad support in the Senate, and clearly the President is on board as well. So the only holdup in the entire process is the House of Representatives. Up until about a month ago, I told my constituents that I thought the prospects for passage sometime this year were looking pretty good. House Democrats did have some concerns, but Speaker Pelosi was reportedly working in good faith with the administration to work through them. There were indications of progress and productive conversations with Mexico and Canada to address their concerns as well. It looked as though we were moving along a path to a deal, but then the House blew up all plans for a productive year in Congress. They marched headlong into impeachment and tossed aside important legislation. Forget working on a trade deal that will benefit every sector of the economy; House Democrats are too busy conducting secret hearings in an effort to force the President--someone they despise--out of office. Whether they intend to allow the USMCA to receive a vote in the House is unknown, but I sincerely hope that House Democrats have enough good sense to avoid blowing up a vital trade deal over political disagreements with the President. As we all know, the closer you get to an election, the more challenging legislating actually becomes, and the clock is ticking away. It is a shame that the House continues to put politics ahead of good policy that will benefit the entire American people. The USMCA is good for the economy, good for business, good for workers, and it sure is good for Texas. It is time for the House to quit playing games so we can ratify this trade agreement without further delay. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 24, 2019, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Vice Admiral Charles A. Richard, USN, to be Admiral and Commander, United States Strategic Command, Department of Defense. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 24, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 24, 2019, at 9 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 Thursday, October 24, 2019, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing following nominations: Halil Suleyman Ozerden, of Mississippi, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, Danielle J. Hunsaker, of Oregon, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, Steven J. Menashi, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, William Joseph Nardini, of Connecticut, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, Jodi W. Dishman, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma, Karen Spencer Marston, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Richard Earnest Myers II, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Sarah E. Pitlyk, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, Anuraag Singhal, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, Daniel Mack Traynor, to be United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota, and David M. DeVillers, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, Department of Justice. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 24, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 24, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.