John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 31, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 31, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Vice Admiral Michael M. Gilday, USN, to be Admiral and Chief of Naval Operations, Department of Defense. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 31, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 30, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 31, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Brent James McIntosh, of Michigan, to be an Under Secretary, Brian Callanan, of New Jersey, to be General Counsel, and Brian McGuire, of New York, to be a Deputy Under Secretary, all of the Department of the Treasury, and Travis Greaves, of the District of Columbia, to be a Judge of the United States Tax Court, Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 31, 2019, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 31, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Sharon Fast Gustafson, of Virginia, to be General Counsel, and Charlotte A. Burrows, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member, both of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 31, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of W. Stephen Muldrow, to be United States Attorney for the District of Puerto Rico, Department of Justice.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in the series be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday President Trump announced that after nearly 2\1/2\ years of dedicated service, our former Senate colleague Dan Coats would be stepping down from his post as Director of National Intelligence. Director Coats has led the intelligence community during a turbulent time for our country, and with our country continuing to face persistent threats from rogue and hostile states, as well as the ongoing war against terror, he has done a magnificent job and one that deserves all the accolades we can possibly bestow upon him. We know he entered the job on the tail of a blatant attempt by the Russian Government to interfere with our Nation's elections, and he made it a top priority to ensure that the American people could cast a vote with confidence in 2018 and beyond. I just happened to come in the Chamber, when the Senator from Ohio was continuing to question the majority leader's commitment to election integrity, and I must say that it is ironic to me that the Russian interference with the 2016 election was, by and large, met with inaction, really nothing that the Obama administration did, even though they knew it was ongoing as early as the summer of 2016. The truth is, as a result of this administration's and this Congress's efforts, the 2018 election was essentially interference free, and that is because of tremendous actions being taken by the Department of Homeland Security to work with our partners in the State election systems to provide sensors that can identify attempts to hack into their system as well as the movement of State election officials to move to paper ballots and the like. We also know we have been much more aggressive attacking the cyber threats at their source, and while much of that is classified and can't be discussed in a public forum, suffice it to say that if we can just repeat the successes of 2018 during the Trump administration in 2020, Americans can be confident their vote will be cast and be counted as it should be. That is not to suggest for a moment that we shouldn't remain vigilant because we know the Russian Federation is going to continue to try to sow discord and cause us to question our own institutions. They are very good at it. They have been doing it a long time, but now they have additional tools like social media and propaganda as well as the complicity sometimes of the mainstream media in writing unverified and unsourced stories that create more and more and contribute more and more to this atmosphere in which we currently live. Let me talk again about Director Coats because his remarkable career as a public servant included, at times, a Congressman, an ambassador to Germany, a U.S. Senator twice, and Director of National Intelligence. I know I speak for others in this Chamber in saying that we are grateful for Dan Coats' dedicated service to our country, and I am honored to be one of those who can call him a friend. I wish him and Marsha the best in whatever the next chapter brings, hopefully starting with a well-deserved vacation. I was also glad to see that the President has chosen a worthy successor to that position, my friend John Ratcliffe. For 4\1/2\ years, John has faithfully and diligently served Texas's Fourth District in Congress for the people of Texas. Prior to that, he served with distinction as U.S. attorney, prosecuting cases that spanned a wide spectrum of issues, including counterterrorism and national security. Mr. Ratcliffe is a Member of the House Intelligence, Homeland Security, and Judiciary Committees, a pretty good portfolio for somebody who would be the next Director of National Intelligence. So he already has an understanding of the threats facing our country and the challenges that lie ahead. I am confident he will continue Dan Coats' strong leadership as a nonpartisan strong leader for the intelligence community. Sadly, though, we can already begin to see our Democratic colleagues beginning to play their partisan games, threatening to defeat this nomination at the expense of the American people. This position is simply too important to the security of our Nation to be bogged down in partisan politics. Since this job was created, every single Director has been confirmed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. In fact, none of these men received the support of fewer than 85 Senators. This one should be no different. I look forward to the President formally nominating John Ratcliffe to be the next Director of National Intelligence. Judicial Nominations Mr. President, on another matter, during the first 2 years of the Trump administration, the list of vacancies across the Federal Government was a long one, particularly on the Federal bench. The administration worked swiftly to find well-qualified nominees who were eager to serve our country and our Federal judiciary. Once those nominees were submitted to the Senate, the chairman quickly held confirmation hearings and advanced the vast majority of these nominees to the floor, but from there the process came to a screeching halt. But from there, the process came to a screeching halt. Our colleagues on the other side pulled every trick in the book to bog down and slow down the nominations process. For no other purpose than delay, they forced cloture votes on nominees with broad bipartisan support. Many were confirmed without a single Senator voting against them. Our Democratic colleagues didn't do this because these men and women were unqualified or otherwise controversial, but they did so because they were willing to do whatever it took to stymie President Trump and his administration and bring the work of this body to a crawl. The list of vacancies kept growing longer and longer until, earlier this year, we were forced to pass a modest rules change that has fortunately broken the logjam and allowed us to fill these critical positions. As the majority leader likes to say, we are now making serious headway in the personnel business. The number of vacancies has gotten smaller, and the list of public servants who are now on the job keeps getting longer. Last week, we added more names to that impressive list. We confirmed two district judges, inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security, and both the Administrator and Deputy Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. In addition, we approved two leaders whose experience will provide needed stability and leadership at the Pentagon. After nearly 7 months with an Acting Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper has finally been confirmed for the position of Secretary of Defense on a permanent basis. Throughout his career, Secretary Esper has demonstrated integrity, sound judgment, and unabashed patriotism. I saw those qualities when I met with him most recently a few weeks ago and we had the chance to speak about some of the most pressing global threats we were facing as a nation today. Secretary Esper received broad bipartisan support, with 90 Senators voting for him. I am glad he is now on the job, leading America's national security. We also confirmed another important senior Department of Defense official last week. GEN Mark Milley was resoundingly confirmed to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with only one Senator voting against him. I can't think of anyone more prepared for the job than General Milley, a former Army Ranger and Green Beret. He has a remarkable military resume, including commander officer of the III Corps in Fort Hood, TX, where I first got to know him years ago. I know he and Secretary Esper will continue to have a strong working relationship, and I look forward to continuing to work with both of them in their new roles. This week, we intend to keep our progress on nominations going strong, and we have seven Texas district court judge nominees on the docket. Among those well-qualified nominees is a former Army paratrooper and Marine JAG officer, former and current intermediate court judges, former and current Federal and State prosecutors, and a Texas Supreme Court justice--a job I once held. They have all proudly served the Lone Star State in a variety of capacities. I am, again, impressed by the outstanding nominees that the President has recruited to fill these important judicial vacancies. When these nominees are confirmed, we will finally break down two barriers in the Texas district courts. Ada Brown will be the first African-American woman to sit in the Northern District of Texas, and Jason Pullman will be the first African American in the Western District of Texas. Each of these nominees has shown their legal acumen, clear judgment, and unwavering commitment to the rule of law. I look forward to voting for their nominations later this week. In addition to confirming these Texans and a dozen other district court judges, the Senate will confirm a critical Cabinet-level position in the administration. When Nikki Haley announced that after 2 years of dedicated service, she would leave her post as Ambassador to the United Nations at the end of last year, we knew it would leave a major hole in that organization. But the President didn't have far to look to find a well-qualified nominee. Two years ago, the Senate unanimously confirmed Kelly Knight Craft to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Canada. Looking back on that 2 years now, it is safe to say it has been a dynamic time during our relationship with our neighbor to the north, a fact that made Ambassador Craft's job all that much more important. Through each challenge and difference between our leaders, Ambassador Craft has demonstrated her tact and diplomatic skills. In addition to the usual duties of the office, Ambassador Craft facilitated the renegotiation of NAFTA--the North American Free Trade Agreement--and helped broker the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement--the USMCA. She helped build consensus on this agreement, which will benefit North American workers, farmers, and businesses, and won friends from both countries in the process. Once Trump nominated Ambassador Craft to represent the United States in the U.N., we heard glowing endorsements from many of those people. Canadian officials praised her role in NAFTA negotiations and border conditions, and U.S. diplomats who served under Republican and Democratic administrations spoke of their confidence in Ambassador Craft and her ability to represent our country on the world stage. For the last 2 years, Ambassador Craft has made our country proud as the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, and I am confident her outstanding record will continue at the United Nations. I appreciate her willingness to serve in this important role and look forward to voting for her nomination later this week. As we prepare to head home for the August recess to spend time with our constituents, I am glad to know these important positions throughout the Federal Government will not be left vacant for much longer. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this morning, the Senate Finance Committee marked up a legislative package that was designed to address the high prescription drug costs, which have become a burden to Americans of all ages. This is part of a bipartisan effort to make targeted reforms to our healthcare system in order to lower costs for patients and taxpayers without interfering with the free market or the beneficial innovation that comes from it. Last month, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Judiciary Committee passed legislative packages that were designed to support this goal. This morning, the Finance Committee passed a package called the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. This legislation looks specifically at reducing prescription drug prices, particularly out-of-pocket costs, for seniors and children through Medicare and Medicaid reforms. I have heard a lot from my constituents in Texas about the impact of these high costs. Bob from San Angelo told me that both he and his wife have Medicare Part D and are struggling to stretch their retirement incomes far enough to cover the expenses for their prescription drugs. He told me, each month, they pay nearly $800 for Medicare and Medicare supplements. On top of that, they are strapped with high prescription drug costs. In the first 4\1/2\ months of this year, Bob said they spent more than $1,600 on his wife's medication alone. For seniors who live on fixed incomes, these high costs can simply be untenable. Then there is Michael, another one of my constituents, who told me about his continued struggle to cover the cost of his medication. He said: ``It feels like we are being taken advantage of because they know we have to take these drugs.'' These individuals have been paying into this system for decades, and it is high time we look at ways to reduce the financial strain and provide some relief. Now, coming up with policies that will lower out-of-pocket costs is not easy. The whole drug pricing regime is enormously complex--frankly, it is opaque--particularly the relationships between pharmacy benefit managers and drug manufacturers, but we need to work hard at this effort to lower costs in Medicare and Medicaid and to decrease the high cost of prescription drugs even in the commercial markets. I appreciate the commitment of Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Wyden to identify potential reforms, and I believe the package that was voted out of the Finance Committee this morning is a step in the right direction. This is not a statement of endorsement of the legislation as it has come out of the committee. A lot of work needs to be done, particularly a lot of work in order to reconcile the different approaches of the different committees--the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Judiciary Committee--because the last thing we want to do is to go through this arduous, complex legislative exercise only to find out that we have failed to lower out-of-pocket costs for American consumers or that we have introduced some other unintended consequence that makes things worse and not better. The journey a drug takes from research and development to manufacturing, to pharmacy shelves, and eventually into our medicine cabinets is enormously complicated. As I said, once a consumer has purchased a drug, figuring out who gets what part of each dollar requires--well, I was going to say it requires a Ph.D. It requires even more than that because you may need to hire an ex-FBI agent to try to track down what percentage of each dollar each of the players in the prescription drug field actually gets. As a consumer, this is particularly alarming because we don't really have any idea of whether we are paying a fair price or who is profiting and at what point or whether people are doing things that benefit their bottom lines. They don't actually add value to the system. Ultimately, they end up costing consumers more out of pocket. When it comes to Medicare and Medicaid, it is doubly concerning because, in most cases, these prescriptions are being at least partially subsidized by taxpayer dollars. So we need to shine a bright light on the reasons behind these high costs and price increases to make sure patients aren't being gouged and to make sure the government--in other words, the taxpayer--isn't being overcharged. That is one of the primary goals of this legislation. It would require manufacturers to report information about price increases to the Department of Health and Human Services as part of that transparency effort. As I suggested a moment ago, it also looks at the role of pharmacy benefit managers who are the intermediaries who link manufacturers to consumers. They negotiate with the manufacturers to secure rebates, which create a net price, but it doesn't appear that, by and large, this actually flows to the consumer or to the patient. Frequently, it is used, we are told, to keep premiums lower by the health plans. Yet we don't know that for sure because trying to get access to the information is really challenging, and the size of the rebate could mean the difference between a drug's being covered by insurance or not. Oh, by the way, rebates don't help you at all for your copay or for your deductible. These days, we know, for example, for many Americans, the Affordable Care Act has resulted in sky-high deductibles and high premiums. That means consumers have to pick up more of the cost at the list price, not at the net price, which is negotiated by the pharmacy benefit managers who work together with the healthcare plans. I find it very strange, with as big a role as the pharmacy benefit managers play, that we know very little about how they operate or whether they all operate exactly the same or differently. This legislation would require pharmacy benefit managers to disclose details of the discounts of rebates they receive and finally pull back that cloak of secrecy. I do have concerns about one portion of the bill that was voted out of the Finance Committee this morning, which would require manufacturers to pay a rebate on drug price increases that are higher than the rate of inflation. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the inflation rebate will save $50 billion for Medicare. It claims it will lower out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries by $7 billion and lower premiums by $4 billion. I asked the head of the CBO this morning: Well, if everybody saves money, who ends up paying more money? It basically comes out of the manufacturer's hide. This really speaks to my other major concern, and that is that the Federal Government not get into a position in which it is setting prices. We know that when you institute price controls on a commodity-- particularly if you are the Federal Government--and when you try to negotiate with somebody, it is not a level playing field. When you negotiate with somebody as the Federal Government, you are literally doing it with a gun to one's head or figuratively doing it with a gun to one's head. It is not a normal give-and-take negotiation. Ultimately, what happens with price controls is it creates scarcity because, at some point, the manufacturer or the producer of that commodity will say: I am not going to produce that at that controlled price by the government. So this is a serious concern. The CBO also estimates that this rebate would reduce costs for prescription drug benefits offered by commercial insurance plans. Although we don't have a final score by the CBO--this is just a preliminary plan--I will share with you an observation made years ago by Senator Bob Bennett, of Utah, when I first came to the Senate. He said: The one thing I can tell you about CBO scores is that they are always wrong. I can't tell you if they are too high or too low, but this is part of the complexity of trying to predict the future and how human behavior will affect their calculations and analyses. Sometimes they get it right, and sometimes they get it wrong. Despite the encouraging estimates, many members of the committee had significant concerns that this policy could lead to higher launch prices or higher out-of-pocket spending. So this morning in the markup, I supported an amendment by our friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey, that would have removed this inflation rebate penalty. Unfortunately, it failed on a tie vote. It is something I don't think I have seen before, in which 14 Senators voted for it and 14 voted against it, but it means the amendment failed. Here is the problem. There is a delicate balance between preventing price increases, which is something we would all like to do, and still preserving the market-based approach that has made Part D such an overwhelming success. It actually is a government program that works better than we thought it would when it was passed. I think we need more input before this bill comes to the floor, for there is a lot of work yet to do. As the old adage goes, anything worth doing is worth doing right, and we had better get this right. I think there will be quite a price to pay if we undertake this huge exercise and end up failing to reduce consumers' out-of-pocket costs or creating more problems as a result of unintended consequences. Providing our seniors peace of mind when it comes to their healthcare costs is certainly worth doing right. So I believe we need to continue refining this proposal to strike a better balance and effectively deliver on our promises. It is important that we not rush this process. There is no artificial deadline. There shouldn't be. That is why the Senate was created, to force deliberation in a body of 100 Senators with challenging rules to actually get things to the President's desk for his signature. But what it should do is force deliberation and force us to do our due diligence to make sure that we are not creating more problems or failing to accomplish our goal. I told members of the committee this morning that I don't think this bill, as written, is anywhere near ready to be considered on the floor. I asked the chairman and the ranking member to commit to continue working with Members before this does come to the floor, and I was glad that both of them agreed to do so. While I believe we are making some progress, we better be very careful, and we shouldn't impose on ourselves any artificial deadlines in order to get this thing done and perhaps get it done badly. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, earlier this week, the administration and House Democrats reached a bipartisan budget deal to deliver on the President's priorities and prevent a funding crisis this fall. As our Armed Forces continue their global engagements, this agreement importantly secures the funding necessary to maintain readiness and modernize the force. It provides increased defense spending to recover from the depressed military readiness rates of the previous administration. It provides our men and women in uniform with the resources, equipment, and training they need in order to defend our freedoms. I know Congress deals with a lot of different topics, and all of them, by and large, are important, but there is nothing more important, nor is there anything more quintessentially a Federal Government responsibility than national security. All other considerations aside, if this bipartisan budget deal did nothing more than fully fund our national security efforts, I would support it, but importantly, it also keeps other important elements of the congressional consensus intact--things like the Hyde amendment, which, as the Presiding Officer knows, since the late 1970s has ensured that no taxpayer dollars can be used to fund abortions. In addition, this agreement prevents our Democratic colleagues from trying to block President Trump from using funds to strengthen border security. The administration--Secretary Mnuchin--negotiated a tough deal and one that excludes any radical, leftwing poison pills--a difficult task in these times, to be sure. We know they wanted to use policy riders--nearly 30 of them and counting--to try to implement elements of the Green New Deal to undo the President's regulatory reforms or to rewrite our immigration laws through the back door. Earlier this year, their far-left policy riders led to the longest government shutdown in history and almost prevented the enactment of bipartisan border supplemental funding. I saw the devastating impact that shutdown had on dedicated public servants across the country, especially in Texas. This agreement will prevent another senseless shutdown and ensure that the trains of government run on time. To be sure, no bipartisan agreement is ever perfect. That is the definition of a negotiation--both sides give a little. It is the nature of compromise, which is a necessary part of effective governing. There is no doubt that there are other priorities I would have liked to have seen included in the deal. I wish we had done something to reform our entitlement programs, which will continue to outpace inflation and increase our national deficit. Someday, we are going to have to deal with our deficits and debt; I just hope it is not during the time of a national emergency. But as a practical matter, Speaker Pelosi wasn't going to agree with such far-reaching reforms in the context of this spending deal and debt limit provision. Thankfully, the President was able to secure half of the spending cuts he asked for--roughly equal to next year's increase in nondefense spending. Above all, this deal carries out the most critical responsibilities of the Federal Government, which is to support our national defense and fully fund the government's operation. Again, I appreciate the President's efforts here and particularly those in his administration who helped negotiate this bipartisan deal-- particularly Secretary Mnuchin. I look forward to supporting it.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 10 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 Wednesday, July 24, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of David L. Norquist, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of Defense. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 24, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a business meeting and hearing on the following nominations: Theodore Rokita, of Indiana, to be a Director of the Amtrak Board of Directors, Jennifer L. Homendy, of Virginia, and Michael Graham, of Kansas, both to be a Member of the National Transportation Safety Board, Carl Whitney Bentzel, of Maryland, to be a Federal Maritime Commissioner, Michael J.K. Kratsios, of South Carolina, to be an Associate Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Ian Paul Steff, of Indiana, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Director General of the United States and Foreign Commercial Service. 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, July 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 Wednesday, July 24, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Brent James McIntosh, of Michigan, to be an Under Secretary, Brian Callanan, of New Jersey, to be General Counsel, and Brian McGuire, of New York, to be a Deputy Under Secretary, all of the Department of the Treasury, and Travis Greaves, of the District of Columbia, to be a Judge of the United States Tax Court for a term of fifteen years. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 24, 2019, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 24, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Chad F. Wolf, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans, and William Bryan, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary for Science and Technology, both of the Department of Homeland Security, Robert M. Duncan, of Kentucky, to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service, Ann C. Fisher, of the District of Columbia, and Ashley Jay Elizabeth Poling, of North Carolina, both to be a Commissioner of the Postal Regulatory Commission, Catherine Bird, of Texas, to be General Counsel of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, and Rainey R. Brandt, and Shana Frost Matini, both to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 24, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a business meeting and the nomination of E. Sequoyah Simermeyer, of Maryland, to be Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission. Committee on Rules and Administration The Committee on Rules and Administration is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 24, 2019, at 11 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 24, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy The Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy of the Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 24, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, for every American who is old enough to remember, the attacks of September 11, 2001, can be recalled as if they happened yesterday. It is one of those rare, almost generational moments that stand in the forefront of our Nation's collective memory. I am confident that if we lined up all 100 Members of the Senate and asked them where they were that morning, they could tell you. I was in Austin, at home, on the telephone talking to then-Governor Perry, now the Secretary of Energy. My wife got my attention and said: Hold on. You are going to want to see this. I turned to look at the television just as the second airplane hit the World Trade Center. I don't have to tell you; we all remember the heartbreak, confusion, and anger that welled up in all of us as we saw those images. In the days and months and years since the attack, we vowed as a nation to ``never forget'' the events of September 11. I think that is one of the pivotal moments in our Nation's history. We will never forget the 3,000 lives that were lost that day, the loved ones they left behind, or the courage demonstrated by the brave first responders who came from across the country to help in the aftermath of those horrific attacks. Today, Members of the Senate had an opportunity to vote on legislation to turn that promise to ``never forget'' into something tangible. I am proud that we have now permanently authorized the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. This fund was created to support those who answered the Nation's call to help on 9/11 and in the months that followed that attack. Now, nearly 18 years later, first responders from across the country are being diagnosed with cancers, respiratory diseases, and other illnesses because of their dangerous work on that day. For them, each day serves as a tragic reminder of the heartbreaking images most of us just witnessed on a television screen. The legislation we passed today is the Never Forget the Heroes: Permanent Authorization of the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund Act. As the name suggests, it permanently authorizes funding to support those American heroes who led lifesaving recovery operations following the attacks on 9/11. As I suggested, many of the diseases that affect these men and women, such as cancers and respiratory diseases, may not have become apparent for years after 9/11. It is the nature of these diseases. Ensuring the longevity of this fund is critical to providing these heroes with the resources they need, whether that life-changing diagnosis comes today or 50 years from now. It is part of our commitment as Americans to support our first responders and the heroes who ran not away from but toward the danger on that fateful day. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have worked to support our first responders who were there for our communities during the most difficult times. The 9/11 first responders represent the very best of America, and they deserve every ounce of assistance we are able to provide. This legislation received 402 votes in the House of Representatives and 97 votes here in the Senate, something nearly unheard of these days. I appreciate our colleagues who have been working to get this legislation passed to provide these men and women with some peace of mind. I am proud to be one of the cosponsors, and I am now glad it is headed to the President's desk for his signature. Prescription Drug Costs Madam President, a survey last summer found that many Texans are struggling to afford the rising cost of their healthcare. Three out of five surveyed reported forgoing or postponing care because of the cost barrier. That includes cutting their pills in half, skipping doses, or not filling a prescription because they simply couldn't afford to do so. With healthcare costs on the rise, things aren't expected to get any easier unless we do something about it. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimated that between 2018 and 2027, customers can expect to see prescription drug spending increase by an average of 6.1 percent a year. That is a faster increase than hospital stays, doctors' visits, or any other healthcare expenditure. There seems to be bipartisan agreement that something must be done. But the real question is what that something is: What are your ideas about how to make that something a reality? Many of our progressive Democratic friends have embraced Medicare for All as the solution to the problems that exist in our healthcare delivery system. Their proposal, though, would kick about 180 million Americans off of their private insurance and force them into one big government-run plan. It would drain the vital program that seniors have relied upon for more than a century and replace it with a watered-down version that would result in long waiting lines for inferior care. The government would tell you what clinic you had to go to, what doctor you could see, and what prescriptions you could actually take. You would lose your freedom and power to decide what is best for you and your family when it comes to your healthcare. You would have to simply take what you could get on somebody else's schedule. Last but not least, Medicare for All would completely bankrupt our country. I think this approach is akin to having a pipe burst in your house, but instead of repairing it, tearing the whole thing down and rebuilding it from scratch. It is unaffordable. It is unpopular. It is unnecessary and goes against all logic. Don't get me wrong. Our healthcare system is not perfect, but Medicare for All is actually worse, and it would create more problems than it would solve. Instead, I support targeted reforms that have been offered by a number of our colleagues here--most on a bipartisan basis--to lower healthcare costs and to give people more choices in terms of what fits their needs the best. On Thursday, the Senate Finance Committee will be marking up a package of bills that will aim to reduce prescription drug costs for seniors and families. Last month, the Senate HELP Committee overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan bill to reduce out-of-pocket healthcare costs and increase transparency and eliminate surprise medical bills. A few weeks ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, unanimously reported out legislation that would keep pharmaceutical companies from gaming the patent system. All of these reforms are intended to repair the problems that exist without completely leveling the existing healthcare system. For example, the package that passed the Judiciary Committee included a proposal I introduced with our colleague from Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, called the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act. This bill takes aim at two practices often deployed by pharmaceutical companies to stomp out competition and protect their bottom line. First, this bill targets a practice called product hopping. When a company is about to lose exclusivity of a product--that is, when their patent is about ready to run out--they often develop some sort of minor reformulation and then yank the original patented drug off the market. That prevents generic competition. There is no doubt that legitimate changes have warranted a new patent, but, too frequently, we are seeing this deployed as a strategy to box out generic competition. About 90 percent of the drugs we all take are generic and not branded drugs under a patent. That means we get less expensive drugs that are just as effective as the original branded product. That is the way our system is supposed to work, by making generic drugs more readily available and affordable. By defining product hopping as anti- competitive behavior, the Federal Trade Commission would be able to take action against those who engage in this practice. Our bill would also target something known as patent thicketing by limiting the patents companies can use to keep competitors away. Some drug companies like to layer on patent after patent in an attempt to make it virtually impossible for biosimilar manufacturers to bring a competing product to market. While the patent on the actual drug formula may have expired, there are still, in some cases, hundreds of other patents to sort through that discourage competition. This bill would limit the number of patents these companies can use and streamline the litigation process so that companies are spending less time in the courtroom and, hopefully, more time in the laboratory developing lifesaving innovative drugs. Competitors would be able to resolve patent disputes faster and bring their drugs to market sooner. Of course, better competition means better prices for patients. It is also good news for taxpayers. Just last week, we received the cost estimate of this bill from the Congressional Budget Office, and they found it would lower Federal spending by more than one-half billion dollars over 10 years. This is just the savings to the Federal Government under Medicare and Medicaid. There would undoubtedly be additional significant savings for consumers with private health insurance. The Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act does not prevent manufacturers from making improvements to their products, and it doesn't limit patent rights. It also doesn't hamper innovation, and it doesn't spend money we don't have on a system we don't really want. It simply stops those who knowingly game and abuse our patent system. Our country is proudly a leader in pharmaceutical innovation, partly because we offer robust protection for intellectual property. When you create a new drug, you are granted a patent, an exclusive right to sell that drug for a period of years. But this legislation ensures that those who game the system--the bad actors--are no longer able to take advantage of these innovation protections in order to maintain their monopolies at the expense of the American people after their patent should have expired. I believe there is more we can do to improve our healthcare system and bring down out-of-pocket costs for the American people, but instead of tearing down the whole house, let's make the repairs we actually need. Order of Procedure

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the postcloture time on the Dickson nomination expire at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, July 24; further, that following the disposition of the Dickson nomination, the Senate vote on the cloture motions for the Berger and Buescher nominations; finally, that if cloture is invoked, the Senate vote on the confirmations of those nominations in the order listed at 3 p.m. and, if any of the nominations are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 265.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 194.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Merkley for up to 75 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, July 24; and further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Dickson nomination under the previous order.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, over a week ago, I traveled to the Texas-Mexico border with the Vice President, as well as the Presiding Officer and other Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. We visited McAllen, which is located in the heart of the Rio Grande Valley, which is a beautiful region with a thriving economy, but folks in the region continue to struggle to manage the growing humanitarian crisis caused by the massive influx of migrants arriving at our southern border. The Rio Grande Valley has been disproportionally impacted by this migrant crisis, with 46 percent of all apprehensions last month occurring in that sector. It has taken a toll, as you might expect, on the Border Patrol, the Department of Health and Human Services, local communities, and the nongovernmental organizations working to provide care for these migrants. Our trip provided the opportunity for the Vice President and members of the Judiciary Committee to meet with the men and women who are on the frontlines of this crisis and hear about the challenges they face every day. We also discussed what Congress needs to do to help them address this crisis. Chairman Lindsey Graham invited all the members of the Judiciary Committee, both Republicans and Democrats, to go on the trip, but unfortunately none of our Democratic colleagues accepted that invitation. Instead of going on a bipartisan basis, Senate Democrats chose to wait a week and go on what was clearly a partisan messaging mission. The minority leader said the purpose of the trip was to ``investigate, inspect and evaluate conditions for migrants at facilities on the border.'' They traveled to McAllen--exactly where we were 1 week before--and they had a very similar itinerary, but they had a very different mission. Our mission was to find out what Congress needed to do to help fix the problem; theirs was to shine a light in a partisan fashion on conditions of migrants, which are largely of Congress's own making as a result of congressional inaction on dealing with the underlying causes. We both met with Chief Patrol Agent Rudy Karisch, toured the Donna holding facility, heard from Border Patrol agents, and had the chance to speak to the migrants themselves, but our takeaways from these nearly identical trips were quite different. This was like ships passing in the night. I left that trip feeling immense gratitude for our professional Border Patrol agents, whom we met, working tirelessly to fulfill their duties with the utmost professionalism and compassion. As this crisis has grown, they have been asked to do more and more with less and less. They go to work each morning not knowing exactly what the day will bring. Will they encounter a group of hundreds of migrants? Will they find abandoned children left for dead by smugglers? Will they rescue a drowning family from the Rio Grande or, worse, find the remains of those who have succumbed due to the dangerous journey in very hot weather? This growing crisis is not the fault of our professional law enforcement officials working along the border, and despite what our colleagues across the aisle claim, it is not a side effect of the 2016 Presidential election either. This migrant crisis has been bubbling up for years. We got a glimpse of how bad it could be in 2014 when then- President Obama announced there was a ``humanitarian and security crisis''--his words--on the southern border. In May of 2014--the height of apprehensions that year--nearly 69,000 people were detained at the southern border. In May of this year, that number more than doubled to 144,000 in 1 month alone. So President Obama called it a ``humanitarian and security crisis'' in 2014, and the problem has roughly doubled since that time. If there is one thing I hope our colleagues found on their trip, as the minority leader said, to investigate, inspect, and evaluate, I hope it is this: I hope their investigation confirmed what they have reflexively denied for months on end--that there is, in fact, a crisis at the border. I hope their inspection revealed that the problem isn't with the administration's policies or with the actions of our Border Patrol; it is our broken immigration system. And I hope they evaluated that without some type of action--real action--by Congress, the situation along the border will only continue to get worse. As this senseless partisanship over border security carries on, people living and working along the border are also hurting. When we were in McAllen a week and a half ago, we heard from one Border Patrol agent, Oscar Escamilla, who talked about the role Border Patrol plays at the centralized processing centers. He said: We wear different hats. Sometimes we're fathers, sometimes we're mothers, brothers, sisters, play pals, and even counselors. We do this because we care. We do this because there is a real need. There is certainly a need. Last month, we passed bipartisan legislation to send much needed humanitarian relief, which will provide some temporary help. That bill also included funding for the departments and agencies that have depleted their resources trying to manage this crisis the best they can, and it made $30 million available for impacted communities to apply for reimbursement from the Federal Government. In other words, they have had to pay out of their own pockets for something that is the Federal Government's responsibility, and I am glad that at least we provided $30 million for reimbursement. This was a long-overdue and important step to support those who have been working day in and day out, hour by hour, minute by minute, to manage this crisis, but, as the folks we talked about in McAllen reiterated, the underlying problem still exists. In other words, you can treat the symptoms, or you can treat the cause. But we shouldn't be confused. We have been maybe addressing some of the symptoms; we have done nothing to address the underlying cause. These officers and agents work incredibly hard to enforce our laws and provide compassionate care for those in their custody, but without meaningful action from Congress, we are sending them into a losing battle. Without fixing the loopholes and repairing the broken system that facilitated this humanitarian crisis in the first place, we will find ourselves experiencing deja vu every few months. If you think $4.5 billion was needed for this emergency just a couple of weeks ago, wait for 6 more months, when there will be another $4.5 billion required and thereafter and thereafter and thereafter. Well, what is the answer to the underlying root cause? What does Congress need to do in order to fix it and to staunch this flow of humanity across our border? Well, there is only one bill out there with bipartisan support--with support both in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate--that would provide relief along the border, and that is the HUMANE Act. It is an honest, nonpartisan attempt to fix the problem--no poison pills, no radical proposals, just reasonable policy designed to solve the problem. This bill would close what has become known as the Flores loophole, which is often exploited by human smugglers as a way to gain entry into the United States. This is an effective way to stem the flow of those trying to game--to game--our immigration system without inhibiting legitimate trade or travel. In addition, the HUMANE Act would improve the way we process individuals entering into our country. We got the recommendation for the legislation from the bipartisan Homeland Security Advisory Committee. It would, for example, establish regional processing centers, which would have personnel on hand from across the government to assist, including medical personnel and asylum officers right there at the border in regional processing centers. Finally, it would improve standards of care for individuals in our custody--something we all want to see happen. It would require the Department of Homeland Security to keep families together during court proceedings and ensure that migrants have timely access to medical assistance, as well as recreational activities, educational services, and even legal counsel. The HUMANE Act also requires additional training for Customs and Border Protection and ICE officers, otherwise known as Immigration and Customs Enforcement--in other words, everyone who deals with children. The HUMANE Act is the only bipartisan bill currently proposed, and I would urge all of our colleagues to give it serious consideration. I can only hope that this trip our Democratic colleagues took convinced them that it is time to quit playing games and get serious about finding a solution to the humanitarian crisis on our southern border. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am proud of the fact that 1 out of every 10 persons who wears the uniform of the U.S. military calls Texas home. It is no surprise that with more than a dozen military installations in the State, many servicemembers choose to live in Texas when they return to civilian life. We have the second highest veteran population of all of the States, with an estimated 1.6 million veterans living in Texas. As you might suppose, in having the honor of representing these 1.6 million veterans, I talk to them quite a bit and hear from them often. I hear about the challenges they face when they transition back to civilian life. Whether the challenges are the big ones or the little ones, whether the challenges are of navigating complicated trails of paperwork, getting the timely healthcare they need, or finding employment when they return to civilian life, I am eager to help them identify solutions. Over the last few years, we have made some major progress. In the last Congress, for example, we passed the historic VA MISSION Act, which modernized the veterans' appeals process and the electronic health records system. The bill reformed GI benefits, improved accountability within the VA Administration, and provided the largest funding increase in history for veterans' care and services. We have also passed other bills to help veterans transition from military service. For example, our Jobs for Our Heroes Act made it easy for veterans to get commercial driver's licenses. Believe it or not, it is hard for the private sector to find the truckdrivers it needs. After somebody has driven a large vehicle in the military as part of his daily duties, you can imagine that his transitioning to a commercial driver's license would be a relatively simple thing. Given the paperwork and the bureaucracy and the challenges of one's applying for a commercial driver's license, we were able to pass legislation to facilitate that transition. We also passed the American Law Enforcement Heroes Act, which ensures that veterans get hired by local law enforcement agencies. If you think about that, it is a skill set that many learn in the military, whether they served in the military police or otherwise. If you talk to one of your local police departments, one of the things the department is short on is the number of people who work for local law enforcement. That is also true for Federal law enforcement agencies, particularly for the Border Patrol. Many military servicemembers come out of the military with the very skills that are needed most by the police agencies that work to keep our communities safe. To improve the educational opportunities that are available to these men and women, in the last Congress, we passed a bipartisan bill called the Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act, also known as the Forever GI Bill. President Trump signed it into law in August of 2017. With a stroke of a pen, he enhanced and expanded education benefits for veterans, servicemembers, and their families. The Forever GI Bill made much needed updates for veterans who face school closures while they are enrolled. It expanded work study activities. It also created a scholarship program for students who pursue degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math, the so- called STEM fields. It established the Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship, which provides student veterans with an additional 9 months of GI bill eligibility to ensure they have the time and the financial assistance they need in order to complete their studies in some of our most needed fields. We later learned that there is an issue, though, that prevents many students from taking full advantage of that program. The current law mandates that students must be enrolled in a STEM program for more than 128 credit hours, but the Department of Veterans Affairs found that there are only three States in which the average STEM degree exceeds that minimum. That places many students in an unfair position of either picking from a limited list of schools or forgoing the scholarship money, which can provide up to $30,000 in financial assistance. That is a Hobson's choice for our veterans, and it is time for Congress to fix that error. To ensure that all veterans who want to take advantage of the Nourse scholarship are able to, on a bipartisan basis with several of my colleagues, I recently introduced legislation called the Veteran STEM Scholarship Improvement Act, which would lower the 128 credit hour requirement to the more common 120 credit hour requirement. Now, changing a number from an eight to a zero may not seem like a big deal, but for the veterans who have been frustrated by this impediment that prevents them from using the benefits they were promised, it can be life-changing. This would ensure that Texas's veterans who are interested in pursuing STEM programs that are offered in their communities are able to do so while they receive their GI benefits. I just want to say a word about the GI bill because it is personal to me and my family. My dad, who was a B-17 pilot in the Army Air Corps and was stationed at Molesworth Air Force base in England, flew a total of 26 bombing missions over the English Channel into the industrial heartland of Germany to try to end that terrible, terrible war. Unfortunately, he was shot down and was captured as a prisoner of war on his 26th mission, and he served the last 4 months of World War II as a prisoner of war. Thankfully, he survived that experience. To my point here, when he came back to Corpus Christi, TX, he took advantage of the GI bill so he could continue his education. He received a 2-year associate of arts degree from, as it was called then, the Del Mar Community College. He also met my mother at about that time, and they married. Lo and behold, he ended up deciding, I think I want to go to dental school. So, after he had been shot out of the sky by German anti-aircraft guns, maybe a nice, placid dentist's life sounded pretty good, and that is what he chose. It was thanks to the GI bill that the whole generation of that so- called ``greatest generation'' was able to come back from the war and get the tools and the education they needed in order to contribute to our country and help make our economy and our country as strong as we inherited it and welcome it today. Even for this next greatest generation of veterans who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan and for those who still serve today, it is important for us to keep this opportunity of the modern GI bill benefits when they take off the uniform as Active-Duty servicemembers and transition to civilian life. I thank my colleagues--particularly Senators Rubio, Cruz, Manchin, and Sinema--for supporting the STEM bill I described a little earlier. The House passed the legislation this last month, and I hope the Senate will do the same soon so we can get this bill to the President's desk for his signature. In addition to this legislation, I am eager to vote on the final passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. Last month, the Senate passed our version of the bill with broad, bipartisan support. As a matter of fact, only eight Senators voted against it. It is hard to find many things that are that bipartisan in the Senate or in Washington, DC, today. In addition to investing in military modernization and in providing the largest pay raise in a decade for our troops, this legislation also included other provisions to support our veterans. A bill I introduced with Senator Baldwin, of Wisconsin, called the HAVEN Act, was included as a provision of the NDAA. This bill would shield VA and Department of Defense disability benefits in bankruptcy proceedings in the same way Social Security disability is exempted. Veterans shouldn't be penalized for receiving disability compensation that they are rightly due. I hope this provision will be included in the final version, which will follow the conference committee on the national defense authorization bill. The House passed its version of the NDAA last week, and I hope the conference committee will quickly iron out the differences between the two bills so we can approve this legislation. Like all of my colleagues, I am grateful for the dedicated service and sacrifice of millions of men and women across our country who defend our freedoms. I want to make sure, as we all do, that their transitioning to civilian life after their military service is as smooth as possible. By improving access to healthcare, employment, and education, the Senate is working hard to support America's veterans, and we are demonstrating in a country that has an all-volunteer military that we will keep our commitments to our military members while they wear the uniform and keep our commitments to our veterans when they transition to civilian life. This is an important part of our continuing to recruit and retain the best and brightest to serve in the U.S. military. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that Senators Alexander and Menendez be allowed to speak for 5 minutes each before the vote scheduled at 2 p.m. today.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, 50 years ago, the world was transfixed by a grainy, black-and-white image of Neil Armstrong descending a ladder, preparing to take humankind's first steps on the Moon. I was one of more than half a billion people--the largest television audience in history--glued to the TV screen on that day. I was actually in high school, and, like so many Texans at the time, I was totally engrossed in what was going on. Staring at the television, it was hard to imagine that hundreds of thousands of miles away, two brave Americans were sitting on the surface of the Moon while their comrade remained in lunar orbit up above. I didn't quite understand what this development would mean for the future; I just remember thinking at that moment how proud I was to be an American. I looked up to these three men, and I still do, and I marvel at their courage, their intelligence, and their patriotism, as well as that of the tens of thousands of Americans involved in getting them to the Moon in the first place. We now know that this lunar trio had quite a sense of humor. Michael Collins was once asked in an interview what he was thinking about in the moments leading up to the liftoff on July 16, 1969, and he joked, ``I was thinking of per diem, you know, how many dollars per mile we'd be paid for this voyage.'' Upon the astronauts' return, we learned that when Buzz Aldrin stepped off the ladder, he told Armstrong he was being careful not to lock the door behind him. And when talking about the fact that most of the photos from the surface of the Moon were of Aldrin, Neil Armstrong joked, ``I have always said that Buzz was the far more photogenic of the crew.'' While the first lunar landing meant many different things to people around the world, there is one thing that was abundantly clear: That date--July 20, 1969--established the United States as the world leader in human space exploration. It also put my hometown, the place of my birth, Houston, on the map as a hub for spaceflight innovation in the United States. We all remember the very first words uttered by Neil Armstrong after landing. He said, ``Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.'' Of course, he was talking to the greatest minds of the generation, who were working at Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX. The men and women at Mission Control Center exercised full control over Apollo 11, from the launch at Kennedy Space Center, to landing on the Moon, to the splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. For more than 50 years now, the Johnson Space Center in Houston has been at the heart of America's space program. The success marked the turning point in space exploration, and folks across Texas are eager to celebrate this momentous anniversary. You can do like I have and visit Johnson Space Center yourself and see NASA's Mission Control from Apollo. It was redesigned to look exactly the way it did in 1969, down to the retro coffee cups and glass ashtrays. You can watch the Houston Astros take on Oakland while wearing Apollo 11 caps. Across the State, you can see special movie screenings, space-themed menus, and ``ask an astronaut'' events to educate our next generation of space travelers. To commemorate this historic mission in Washington, I introduced a bipartisan, bicameral resolution with my colleagues Senator Brown, Congressman Babin, and Congresswoman Horn last month. I thank my colleagues who supported this effort and urge my fellow Senators to join me in passing it this week. This resolution honors Apollo 11's three crew members--Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, and Michael Collins--whose bravery and skill made this feat possible. In addition, it commends the work of the brilliant men and women who supported this mission on Earth, including mathematicians like Katherine Johnson and the astronauts who lost their lives in previous spaceflight missions. To ensure that America remains the leader in human spaceflight, this resolution also supports the continued leadership of the United States. With this in mind, earlier this year, I introduced a bill called Advancing Human Spaceflight Act with Senator Peters from Michigan to provide greater certainty and stability for our space program. This legislation will extend the authorization for the International Space Station through 2030 and launch the United States into a new era of space exploration. Our future astronauts need spacesuits with advanced capabilities beyond what current technology can do, so this bill will also direct NASA to develop the next-generation spacesuit for future exploration to the Moon, to Mars, and beyond. In order to make this dream a reality, this legislation will allow NASA to partner with private space innovators to ensure we have the best and brightest working to achieve these goals. In addition, this bill will, for the first time, codify human space settlement as a national goal. I believe this legislation will help set the stage to launch the United States into a new era of space exploration, and there is no better time than this momentous anniversary to recommit ourselves to American leadership in space. In the year since that first ``small step,'' we have watched goal after goal being set and then met. From the Viking 1 landing on Mars to the Voyager Program exploring the outer planets, to the International Space Station making human space habitation a reality, I have no doubt that the success of the Apollo 11 mission made each of these victories possible and paved the way for the future. For the 50th anniversary of the lunar landing, today we honor the brave and brilliant astronauts, physicists, engineers, mathematicians, and scientists of all kinds who made our Nation the first to touch down on lunar soil. We are grateful for their courage, their sacrifices, and their immeasurable contributions to our Nation's space program. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 9 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 17, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 17, 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, July 17, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Michelle A. Bekkering, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, and Richard K. Bell, of Pennsylvania, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Cote d'Ivoire, Jessica E. Lapenn, of New York, to be Representative of the United States of America to the African Union, with the rank and status of Ambassador, Mary Beth Leonard, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and Lana J. Marks, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the Republic of South Africa, all of the Department of State. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 16, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 17, 2019, at 2:30 p.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 Wednesday, July 17, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing following nominations: Halil Suleyman Ozerden, of Mississippi, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, David B. Barlow, to be United States District Judge for the District of Utah, John Fitzgerald Kness, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, and Eleni Maria Roumel, of Maryland, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims. Special Committee on Aging The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 17, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Economic Policy The Subcommittee on Economic Policy of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 17, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management The Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 17, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, last Friday I joined the Vice President of the United States and a number of our colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee for a trip to the Rio Grande Valley and, specifically, to McAllen, TX. The Rio Grande Valley Sector, headquartered in McAllen, is ground zero for the humanitarian crisis on our southern border. I know some of our colleagues refused to acknowledge that this was indeed a humanitarian crisis on our border, but that seems to have waned in recent days in light of the overwhelming evidence. In fact, in 2014 President Obama himself called it a humanitarian and security crisis, and it has gotten nothing but worse. Of all the sectors, it is head and shoulders above the rest in terms of apprehensions of people trying to enter the country illegally. In fact, 46 percent of all apprehensions along the southern border last month occurred in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. Across the entire border, 68 percent of those apprehended in June were unaccompanied children or part of a family unit. In the Rio Grande Valley, that figure shot up to a whopping 79 percent. People may be asking themselves: Why are unaccompanied children and families--that is, an adult with a child--the ones predominantly coming across the border? It is because human smugglers know our laws better than we do, and they are exploiting the vulnerabilities in our asylum laws in order to make a lot of money. They charge roughly $5,000 to $10,000 per person whom they deliver across the border from Central America or from anywhere around the world. As a matter of fact, the Border Patrol told us on Friday, when we were in McAllen, that just in the last year they had detained people from 60--six-zero--different countries coming across the border at the Rio Grande Valley Sector. That is because these human smuggling networks are really worldwide. If you want to come from Bangladesh or Syria or Iran or Russia, all you have to do is make your way to Central America, hire one of these human smuggling networks, and they will work your way up across the border into the United States. This is a national security as well as a humanitarian crisis. As of July 1, the Rio Grande Valley Sector had 8,000 migrants in custody. They are overwhelmed, to be sure. This is placing a huge strain on our resources. Our Border Patrol stations were never designed to hold that many people. The men and women who apprehend and care for these migrants have been unfairly criticized and mischaracterized as bad guys, but last week I got to see once again that they aren't the real villain in this scenario. In fact, they are the heroes. The Border Patrol agents in the Rio Grande Valley, and those along the entire border, are pulling double duty as law enforcement officers and caregivers. They are hired to be law enforcement officers, but they have had to basically end up handing out juice boxes and diapers to unaccompanied children or family units because that is what we are seeing flood across our borders. One minute they are stopping fentanyl, heroin, and methamphetamine from coming across the border and they are stopping dangerous criminals from entering our country, and the next they are comforting crying babies and providing sustenance to children. Balancing an overcrowded facility and a constantly growing list of responsibilities is no easy task, but it is not their fault. It is Congress's fault because only Congress has the authority to provide the change in the laws necessary to stop this endless flood of humanity and this overwhelming of our resources, both human and infrastructure. These dedicated agents handle these demands with professionalism and compassion. My colleagues and I had the opportunity to hear from several of these agents, including Chief Patrol Agent Rudy Karisch. Chief Karisch talked about the work his agents do to provide quality care to those in custody, particularly medical care. In his sector alone, that equates to an average of 32 hospital runs each day--32 hospital runs each day-- to ensure that migrants receive the care they need. As these agents know too well, many of the people who cross the border do so because they are deeply familiar with the loopholes in our immigration laws, and they are eager to exploit them, as I described a moment ago. One of those loopholes is something called the Flores Settlement Agreement, which was created as a way to ensure that unaccompanied children don't remain in Border Patrol custody for long periods of time. It was expanded in, I believe, an unintended and unnecessary sort of way to effectively expand this protection for unaccompanied children to families as well. As a result, we can't detain those families for more than 20 days, the adults in particular. As a result, we see the dramatic increase in the number of families arriving at the border. Why not? What is to discourage them or dissuade them? As we learned during our visit, many of these migrants coming across the border are not families at all. Tim Tubbs is a deputy special agent in charge for Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations, HSI. He discussed the rise in fraudulent families. In other words, by that I mean adults claiming to be the parent or family member of a child when, in fact, they are not related at all. In April, ICE HSI sent more than 400 employees to the southern border to investigate these fraudulent claims of family units. In the roughly 90 days since, more than 352 fraudulent families were discovered across the southern border. He described one case of a Honduran man that illustrates why leaving these loopholes untouched is so dangerous. Again, only Congress can change that. He mentioned the fact that a 51-year-old man negotiated with a pregnant Honduran woman to purchase--to buy--her baby when it was born. For the equivalent of about 80 U.S. dollars, this man purchased her child and then traveled with human smugglers into the United States. If you have a child with you, it is a ticket to entering the United States and exploiting those gaps in our immigration laws. Deputy Agent Tubbs said HSI also uncovered an organization that recycled--recycled--approximately 69 children in order to smuggle people into the United States. In other words, once you successfully get to the United States, these children are sent back and used over and over again in an endless loop to smuggle more adults into the United States under the guise of being a family. We can point the finger of blame at the Border Patrol for being overwhelmed for not having facilities that were designed to handle the influx of this number of people, but that would be a terrible miscarriage of justice. The fact is, Congress needs to look in the mirror. The only people who can change the laws under our Constitution is the U.S. Congress and the President. The President has called time and again for Congress to fix these loopholes in our immigration laws to begin to stem the tide of humanity coming across our border. Our broken laws are fueling this behavior. Unless we take action to close those loopholes that invite more people to illegally enter into our country, the problem will only continue to grow. Amid calls from many of the so-called progressive Democrats running for President to do things that make illegally crossing the border legal--in other words, rather than protecting the sovereignty of our country, securing our borders, they want to actually make entry into the United States legal--the work being done by our Border Patrol and our Health and Human Services and other nongovernmental organizations at the border to keep our country safe and care for migrants in their custody cannot be overstated. The key to solving this crisis isn't opening the door to more illegal immigration; it is removing the pull factors that encourage people to come here in the first place. Of course, you can imagine, if the door were wide open, how many people would come from other countries into the United States at will. They would flood our country. That is part of what is happening now because they don't see any limits or any order or any rules being applied to who enters our country. We are a proud nation of immigrants. We naturalize almost 1 million people a year. This isn't about being anti-immigrant. Immigrants have made our country stronger. Legal immigration is the key distinction. Our friends across the aisle seem to be the champions of illegal immigration. We want our legal, orderly, lawful, rules-based immigration system to work so it can be fair to everybody, rather than let people who have been waiting in line for years to come into the country legally see people jump in line ahead of them and enter the country illegally. That is not fair to them, and that is not a rules- based and lawful and orderly system of immigration. I have introduced legislation that will take major steps to achieve filling those gaps, plugging those holes in our asylum and immigration laws. It is called the HUMANE Act. This bill would close the Flores loophole, streamline the processing of migrants, improve standards of care, which we all want to do for individuals in our custody, and require additional training of customs and Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees who work with children. This bill is, to my knowledge, the only bipartisan, bicameral solution that has been offered. It is bicameral. My friend and colleague in the House, Henry Cuellar, from Laredo, TX, and I have cosponsored this bill--bipartisan, bicameral. As we consider this and other legislative proposals, I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will finally get serious about taking the required action. Chairman Graham of the Judiciary Committee tried to organize a bipartisan trip to the border, believing that would be an important step in helping us witness together the facts on the ground and then hopefully work together to try to solve the problem. I am disappointed that none of our Democratic colleagues accepted his invitation. I hope this is not an indication of what our immigration reform discussions will look like moving forward: no desire to help, no desire to solve the problem, no desire to work together on a bipartisan basis. I hope that is not where we are, but I am fearful that is exactly where we are. I appreciate the Vice President taking the time to visit Texas once again and getting a chance to see the frontline challenges our officers and agents are facing. I would thank Mrs. Pence as well for accompanying the Vice President. Despite the challenges this humanitarian crisis has brought, the Rio Grande Valley remains a wonderful region, characterized by a thriving economy and a vibrant culture. You would be hard-pressed to find more generous people. They have been extraordinarily generous to the migrants who found their way to our front doorstep and are trying to take care of them in a compassionate sort of way, but, frankly, they are overwhelmed too. I thank the men and women of the Border Patrol, as well as local officials, businesses, and members of the border communities who continue to assist with this humanitarian crisis. It would be nice if Congress, on a bipartisan basis, would lift a finger to help.