EXECUTIVE SESSION; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 149
(Senate - September 17, 2019)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S5500-S5508]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of John 
Rakolta, Jr., of Michigan, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the United Arab 
Emirates.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                         Continuing Resolution

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, as negotiations continue on a 
continuing resolution to keep the government open past next week, we 
should be laying the groundwork to process the 12 appropriations bills 
for fiscal year 2020.
  In an ideal world, the Republicans on the Appropriations Committee 
would be negotiating in good faith with the Democrats on the 
Appropriations Committee to determine the allocations and the content 
of those bills, but the Republicans, unfortunately, have not chosen to 
do this. They are acting in a totally partisan way. The Republicans 
have chosen to back the President's demand for an additional $12 
billion in funding for his border wall, taken from other sources, 
including medical research, opioid treatment, and funding intended for 
our military, their families, and their kids. Mexico, oddly, isn't 
chipping in a penny.
  This was all done totally on the Republican side with there having 
been no consultation of the Democrats and, certainly, no buy-in. So, of 
course, the Democrats oppose taking funds from Congress to use on the 
President's border wall that have been intended for our military. 
Everyone knows that. In fact, 12 Senate Republicans opposed the very 
same thing this year, but in typical Washington, blame-game fashion, 
Republican leader Mitch McConnell has been accusing the Democrats of 
threatening to block military funding because we don't want to pass a 
bill that steals money from the military. That is right. The Democrats 
are the ones threatening not to vote for this bill because we oppose a 
Republican bill that would shortchange the military.
  I have heard some howlers in my day, but that is pretty rich, what 
McConnell is saying.
  Leader McConnell constantly talks about stunts. He doesn't like 
stunts because they won't be signed or passed into law. This is a stunt 
if I have ever seen one, that of putting this bill--$12 billion more 
for the wall and with no buy-in by the Democrats--to a vote. It will 
lose. We know it will lose.
  What is the point, Leader McConnell? You say you don't like stunts. 
You say you don't want to bring bills to the floor that won't become 
law. Well, this one certainly won't.
  The fact is the Republican leader knows well that the Democrats 
oppose taking funding away from our troops to use on the President's 
wall. He knows that Members of his own caucus oppose taking money out 
of their States to spend on the President's border wall. Some have been 
quite vocal; yet Leader McConnell is moving forward with the bill all 
the same, knowing that it lacks votes.
  For him to say the Democrats are the ones threatening to block 
military funding when, in fact, we oppose a Republican bill that would 
shortchange the military is the height of double talk by the Republican 
leader.
  Again, the Republican leader is fond of reminding the press that he 
doesn't like to engage in stunts--that the Senate is for making laws 
and is not a forum for political theater. Yet putting this bill on the 
floor of the Senate that everyone knows lacks the votes is the 
definition of a stunt.
  Leader McConnell--and I mean this with all due respect--it is time to 
negotiate. Both sides must sit down and have a serious negotiation--no 
stunts, no blame game. The Democrats want to work with our Republican 
colleagues, but we need a willing partner, and time is quickly running 
out to get a bipartisan appropriations process back on track.


                           Background Checks

  Madam President, now, on guns, a week and a half after our return 
from the August work period, Senators from both sides of the aisle are 
still waiting to hear what the President proposes in order to combat 
the epidemic of gun violence. According to reports, the President's 
yet-to-be-released plan will likely not include universal background 
checks or even a significant expansion of background checks. If those 
reports are true, it will be a profound shame.
  Without closing the loopholes in our background check system, most 
other gun safety measures, like emergency risk protection orders, would 
be severely compromised. Background checks must be the base, the 
foundation, of gun safety legislation. If background checks aren't 
included, we will still be allowing guns to fall into the wrong hands--
those of convicted criminals, domestic abusers, the adjudicated 
mentally ill.
  You can have one of these emergency risk protection orders issued to 
someone--let's say to Mr. John Smith. Yet, if we don't close these 
loopholes, John Smith, the next day, will be able to go online and get 
a new gun because there will be no background check, and the seller of 
the gun will have no way of knowing there will have been a protection 
order against him. Without having background checks, a lot of this 
other stuff isn't going to do the job. It isn't going to save the most 
lives that we can.
  I hope the President thinks long and hard before releasing a proposal 
that falls short of making meaningful progress, particularly on 
background checks.
  In the past, Republican Senators, Congressmen, and candidates 
promised action after mass shootings, only to have announced support 
for legislation that was specifically designed not to offend the NRA. 
We have seen that before.
  This is a chance for the President to do something different and, 
frankly, something courageous. It would be a terrible shame if he were 
to squander that very much needed opportunity. If

[[Page S5501]]

whatever the President announces this week falls short of what the 
American people are demanding, the Democrats will continue to press the 
issue.
  Later tonight, I will join several of my Democratic colleagues on the 
floor for an extended debate on the issue of gun violence. Many of my 
colleagues have seen their communities torn apart by gun violence--some 
by horrific mass shootings, others by a relentless, daily stream. Many 
of them have worked for years to put commonsense gun safety measures 
before the Senate. Tonight, the Democrats will hold a forum to bring 
those stories to the Senate floor--the stories of families who have 
been shattered by gun violence and the stories of our constituents who 
demand that we take action.
  My Republican colleagues, I hope, will listen closely and, more 
importantly, will join the Democrats in working to pass meaningful 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


              United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I spent a lot of time talking to South 
Dakota farmers over the August break, and I can tell you that if there 
is one thing on farmers' minds right now, it is trade; it is markets; 
it is having a place to sell the things that we raise and grow. Farmers 
and ranchers have had a rough few years. Low commodity prices and low 
livestock prices, natural disasters, and protracted trade disputes have 
left our agricultural economy trailing behind our economy as a whole.
  As farmers emphasized to me during August, one of the biggest things 
we can do to help our agricultural economy is to implement trade 
agreements that benefit American farmers and ranchers. The United 
States is currently involved in trade negotiations on multiple fronts--
with the European Union, with China, with Japan, and with other Asian-
Pacific countries.
  Like many farmers and ranchers, I support the President's goal of 
addressing trade imbalances and securing more favorable conditions for 
American products abroad, but we need to conclude these agreements as 
soon as possible. The longer negotiations drag on, the tougher the 
situation for farmers, who face retaliatory tariffs as well as a lot of 
uncertainty about what markets are going to look like.
  We have had some recent successes. In August, the administration 
announced a deal to increase U.S. beef sales to Europe. In May, the 
administration announced a deal with Japan to remove all remaining age 
restrictions on U.S. beef, giving American ranchers full access to the 
Japanese market for the first time in more than a decade. Yet that is 
just a tiny fraction of what needs to get done on the trade front when 
it comes to agriculture.
  Every time I speak with the President and his administration, I 
emphasize what South Dakota farmers have told me: We need to conclude 
negotiations on the various trade deals that we are working on, and we 
need to do it now. We need to open new markets, expand existing ones, 
and give farmers and ranchers certainty about what those markets are 
going to look like.
  While we are still in negotiations on a number of agreements, one 
deal that we don't need to wait for is the United States-Mexico-Canada 
Free Trade Agreement. This agreement has already been fully negotiated 
by our three countries, and Congress can take it up at any point.
  The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement is a clear and significant 
win for our farmers and ranchers. Canada and Mexico are the No. 1 and 
No. 2 export markets for American food and agricultural products. This 
agreement will preserve and expand farmers' access to these critical 
markets and will give farmers certainty about what these markets will 
look like in the long term.
  I am particularly pleased with the improvements the agreement makes 
for U.S. dairy producers. South Dakota has experienced a massive dairy 
expansion over the past few years, and this agreement will benefit U.S. 
dairy producers by substantially expanding market access in Canada, 
which is where U.S. dairy sales have been restricted. The U.S. 
International Trade Commission estimates that the agreement will boost 
U.S. dairy exports by more than $277 million. The agreement will also 
expand market access for U.S. poultry and egg producers, and it will 
make it easier for U.S. producers to export wheat to Canada.
  Of course, while I have been talking a lot about farmers, the 
benefits of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will not be 
limited to the agricultural industry. Virtually every sector of our 
economy will benefit from this agreement--from manufacturing to digital 
services, to the automotive industry. It will create 176,000 new U.S. 
jobs, will grow our economy, and will raise wages for workers.
  The Republicans in the Senate are ready to consider the United 
States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. We are just waiting for the House 
Democrats to stop threatening to oppose the agreement and to show a 
willingness to put it to an up-or-down vote in the House of 
Representatives.
  The administration has made addressing the Democrats' concerns a 
priority throughout the negotiation process, and it seems to me that if 
you are a Democrat who is unhappy with the status quo, voting for the 
USMCA is the best way to fix it.
  I am encouraged by the fact that the Democrats appear to be working 
with the administration to reach a resolution on this agreement, and I 
hope they will continue to work with the White House to bring this 
agreement to a vote as soon as possible in the House of 
Representatives. America's farmers and ranchers need the United States-
Mexico-Canada Agreement. While it won't be a cure-all for all of the 
problems that are facing farm country, it will be a significant step 
forward.
  Congress should pass this agreement as soon as possible and allow 
farmers and ranchers and the rest of the American economy to start 
realizing the benefits.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                        Remembering Marca Bristo

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the disability rights movement is one of 
the great civil rights achievements of our time, and Chicago's Marca 
Bristo was that movement's Rosa Parks.
  Marca was a visionary and inspiring leader, who helped change Chicago 
and change the world when it came to the rights of the disabled, and 
she was my friend.
  Sadly, Marca died last week in her adopted hometown of Chicago at 66 
years of age.
  In typical Marca style, she worked right on up to the few days before 
her death, trying to bend the arc of history just a little more toward 
justice before she drew her last breath.
  I was happy to join my colleague Senator Tammy Duckworth this week in 
sponsoring a resolution honoring Marca's life and work.
  I would like to take a few moments on the floor today to remember 
this amazing woman.
  While most Americans have never heard of Marca Bristo, few lives went 
untouched by her lifelong quest on behalf of people with disabilities. 
She was a nationally and internationally acclaimed leader in the 
disability rights movement.
  She helped to write and to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act 
in 1990, which outlawed discrimination against the estimated one in 
four Americans with disabilities, and she spent the rest of her life 
making sure the ADA was faithfully implemented.
  Along with leaders like Justin Dart, Marca changed the way Americans 
thought about disabilities. She persuaded us to view the disability 
experience as a civil rights issue, not just a medical issue.
  To Marca's mind, what kept many people with disabilities from leading 
full lives was not their disability but the barriers they faced. What 
needed to change, she said, was not the person with disabilities but 
those obstacles that blocked their path. The problem was not that her 
wheelchair was too wide for certain doors; the problem was the doors 
were too narrow for her wheelchair. Remove the barriers, and people 
with disabilities can lead rich and full lives and make enormous 
contributions. That is part of what Marca taught me.
  She was tough, smart, funny, determined, and fearless. She knew how 
to motivate others and how to build coalitions.

[[Page S5502]]

  Her parents actually named her Marcia, but during her freshman year 
in college, a classmate called her Marca. She liked it, and it stuck.
  She moved to Chicago and earned a nursing degree from Rush University 
College of Nursing in 1976.
  In 1977, when Marca was 23 years old, working as a labor-delivery 
nurse at a Chicago hospital, she and her friend were sitting on the 
shore of Lake Michigan, when a dog grabbed her favorite pair of sandals 
and ran into the water with them. Marca dove in to retrieve her shoes, 
not realizing the water was shallow. She broke her neck and was 
paralyzed from the waist down for the rest of her life.
  Because of her paralysis, she lost her job, her health insurance, her 
home, her car, and the ability to navigate the city she loved. She 
thought she would never work again, but luckily the director of 
Northwestern University's Prentice Women's Hospital thought otherwise 
and convinced her to return to nursing.
  At one point, she attended a work conference in San Francisco and saw 
for the first time an abundance of curb cuts--curb cuts that enabled 
people with disabilities to cross the street. It was an eye-opener for 
Marca.
  As she later wrote:

       No longer did I see curbs or stairs or inaccessible buses 
     and bathrooms as a problem around which I needed to navigate. 
     Rather, I saw them as examples of societal discrimination--
     and felt a responsibility to get involved to help people with 
     disabilities, in Illinois and beyond.

  In 1980, Marca founded Access Living in Chicago, a nonprofit 
dedicated to helping people with disabilities live as independently as 
possible rather than warehoused in institutions.
  Access Living led the fight to make public transportation in Chicago 
more accessible. Marca was not a shrinking violet. In 1984, she joined 
others, chaining themselves to Chicago Transit Authority buses. She 
ended up getting arrested, and they ended up filing a lawsuit in reply 
against the transit agency.
  Her determination led to the installation of wheelchair lifts and 
critical changes to CTA buses and rail stations. Access Living became a 
disability leadership model for other cities around the country and 
around the world.
  In 1992, Marca cofounded the National Council on Independent Living, 
which she led for many years.
  In 1993, President Clinton named her to head the National Council on 
Disability. She was the first person with a disability ever to hold 
that post, and she held it until 2002.
  She was elected president of the U.S. International Council on 
Disabilities and traveled around the world advocating for people with 
disabilities and their families.
  She participated in the negotiation for the U.N. Convention on the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities, a global accord based on the 
Americans with Disabilities Act. More than 160 nations have signed that 
treaty, including the United States. Sadly, this Senate has failed to 
ratify that treaty. I worked hours and hours with Marca to try to win 
the votes in the Senate for this bipartisan measure to help people with 
disabilities. We even brought former U.S. Senator Bob Dole, a World War 
II hero and a father of the ADA, to sit on the floor of the Senate when 
we cast the votes on this treaty. Unfortunately, it did not pass.
  Marca called July 26, 1990, the day President George H.W. Bush signed 
the Americans with Disabilities Act, ``Our Independence Day.''
  On that day, she said:

       This ragtag army of people who couldn't see, hear, walk and 
     talk did what everyone said couldn't be done. We passed the 
     most comprehensive civil rights law since the passage of the 
     1964 Civil Rights Act.

  In a 2015 video interview for Rush University Medical Center, 
celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities 
Act, Marca said: ``The law for the first time enshrined in federal law 
that disability is a normal part of the human condition, and the world 
needed to change.''
  In July 2017, days before another ADA anniversary, Marca was again 
fighting for justice. She was 1 of more than 60 who were arrested for 
protesting against the proposed deep cuts in the Medicaid Program that 
had been included in a Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care 
Act.
  As the Capitol Police wheeled her away, Marca raised a clenched fist 
and smiled. That is how I am going to remember her: optimistic, 
determined, even against long odds.
  Days after her arrest, another American hero with a disability, John 
McCain, came to this floor and in the well of this Senate, shocked his 
party and the Nation by becoming the deciding vote against the repeal 
of the Affordable Care Act. I like to think my colleague from Arizona, 
John McCain, saw in Marca Bristo and her determined friends the same 
courage he had witnessed so often in our military.
  My wife Loretta and I extend our condolences to Marca's husband of 32 
years, Bob Kettlewell; their two children, Samuel and Madeline; her 
granddaughter, who was born in June; to Marca's sister Gail; and to her 
countless friends and colleagues.
  Marca made the lives of hundreds of millions of people better. I am 
going to miss her warm smile, her wise advice, her vision, and her 
courage.


                           Emergency Funding

  Madam President, I rise in opposition today to President Trump's 
continued efforts to move funding from our military in order to build 
his beloved wall on our southern border, and I rise as well in defense 
of the powers given to Congress in article I of the Constitution.
  Last week, the President announced he was taking $3.6 billion from 
America's military to build his wall. He did so by canceling 127 
military construction projects around the world and in 26 States and 
territories. Already, President Trump had taken $2.5 billion from our 
military earlier this year. Last week's decision brings the total to 
over $6 billion--$6 billion of investments in our American military and 
national security that the President of the United States has diverted 
so he can have a bragging point in the reelection campaign about his 
beloved wall.
  This decision has rippled across the country and the world.
  Remember the terrible damage Hurricane Maria did in Puerto Rico, 
which is still being repaired? Our military prioritized $400 million to 
rebuild National Guard facilities and the school for military children 
there. With the stroke of a pen, and without the approval of Congress, 
the President took away these funds.
  Joint Base Andrews in Maryland needed a new childcare facility for 
military families. Some of the rooms in that current facility have been 
closed due to mold, which has created overcrowding. There are 130 
children on a waiting list to get into this facility. Their parents are 
paying for expensive off-base childcare. It is unacceptable.
  So Congress, on behalf of these military families at Joint Base 
Andrews in Maryland, approved the money to upgrade the childcare 
center. Once again, with the stroke of a pen, President Trump took the 
military family childcare funds for his almighty wall.
  Military children at Fort Campbell, KY, the home State of the 
Republican majority leader of the Senate, are forced to use overcrowded 
classrooms and a cafeteria so small that students are often shipped off 
to the library to eat.
  With the same stroke of a pen, $62 million that Congress authorized 
for Senator McConnell's home State of Kentucky to fix the problem are 
gone, headed to the border of the United States for the President to be 
able to boast at a rally.
  As if these stories weren't troubling enough, the Air Force is also 
sounding the alarm. A leaked internal review by the Air Force warns 
that President Trump's decision to cancel 51 Air Force projects poses 
serious national security risks to our country.
  Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and the President were a 
member of my party, the Democratic Party. What would we be hearing from 
the Republican side of the aisle?
  One of the projects that has been canceled for the Air Force by the 
President's effort to divert military funds to his wall is Incirlik Air 
Base in Turkey. They needed an upgrade for security on their main gate. 
The Air Force says that without this project, the base is ``vulnerable 
to hostile penetration in the midst of contingency operations and an 
increased terrorist threat.''
  For goodness' sake. The President is building a wall in the middle of 
a desert that is not solving the problem

[[Page S5503]]

we face with our southern border and taking money away from the main 
gate of an Air Force Base in Turkey that has been identified as needing 
to be rebuilt for security against terrorism?
  The report also describes how canceling upgrades to a munitions site 
at an air base in Guam may impact the ability of fighter and bomber 
aircraft to operate properly.
  I ask my colleagues honestly: Are these risks worth taking from our 
military so the President can have a walk-off line at one of his 
political rallies?
  U.S. allies across the globe that are committed to our defense are 
starting to doubt if this White House is still interested in being the 
leader of the free world.
  U.S. troops based in NATO ally countries like Poland, Italy, Germany, 
and Estonia expected $770 million in investments in training center and 
logistical support to push back on Russian aggression in Europe. I can 
tell you, having visited the Baltic States, how critically important 
these funds are to remind the people of that region that the United 
States and NATO allies still stand solidly behind them, as Putin 
threatens them with aggression on a daily basis, and now President 
Trump has removed many of these funds. Similarly, U.S. troops in South 
Korea and Japan were planning on $670 million to protect them from 
threats from North Korea and China.
  The cancellation of all these projects is based on a national 
emergency declared by the President that was rejected by both Houses of 
Congress in bipartisan votes. Congress should not be silent when anyone 
dismisses the real needs of our men and women in uniform for politics. 
Nor should it sit back when the President of any party tries to 
undermine its constitutional duty to provide for the common defense of 
the United States.
  I am greatly concerned that these events set a precedent that 
undermines the Appropriations Committee, which I have dedicated my 
Senate career to.
  We all remember President Donald Trump's idea that we need a 2,000-
mile concrete wall, as he said, ``from sea to shining sea,'' paid for 
by Mexico. He said it 200 times when he campaigned for the Office of 
President, but as we have seen, Mexico hasn't put up a peso. The 
President has decided the American military should pay for it instead. 
The resulting damage to our military and to the Appropriations 
Committee's constitutional authority continues to accumulate.
  It has to stop, and it can stop if my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle can come together to reassert their obligations under the 
Constitution and provide our military families with the certainty that 
they haven't been forgotten in the midst of the runup to the 2020 
campaign.
  I hope all of us think long and hard about the importance of this 
decision and our obligation to stand behind our men and women in the 
military.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                            Brett Kavanaugh

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I want to get straight to the point 
this morning. I find it incomprehensible that some of our friends 
across the aisle are repeating the same missteps that turned last 
fall's Supreme Court confirmation battle into a black mark on the 
history of this body.
  I want to make it clear that I have no desire to relitigate the 
disputes borne from Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings. I 
do not want to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle leverage 
more of the same baseless, salacious allegations in the name of 
partisan politicking. But when you stop and think about it, since they 
have chosen to go there, it is imperative that I speak out--that we 
speak out--about what is transpiring.
  I was not in the Senate for the first go-around on this, but I am 
here now, and I can tell you that I intend to give their arguments 
exactly the amount of deference and respect they deserve.
  Sitting on the sidelines is never easy, but it is especially 
difficult when you are watching a fight and you know you could get in 
there and help win that fight. I know this feeling very well. Last 
fall, I was fighting to go from the House of Representatives to the 
Senate. I was also fighting to become the first female Senator from the 
great State of Tennessee--the very first.
  While on the campaign trail, I got more than an earful from other 
Tennessee women who were watching this breathless coverage of Justice 
Kavanaugh's confirmation. These women were concerned that their voices 
were not being heard in this debate. They were concerned also for 
spouses, sons, brothers, and male colleagues. They could see these 
baseless claims, and they were concerned for the lack of due process. 
They did not like for 1 minute what they were seeing, and I didn't like 
it either.
  These women came from all political walks of life and all areas of 
our State. They were disgusted by the nature of the sexual assault 
allegations, and they were horrified by what they rightly saw as an 
eagerness to set aside the due process that is so important to this 
Nation and to the rule of law. It was being set aside in order to make 
an example out of Kavanaugh.
  Were flimsy allegations and social justice buzzwords really the new 
standard for credibility?
  As much as I wanted to reassure these women that sanity would 
prevail, in the back of my mind I remained fully aware that, if left 
unchecked, insanity is fully capable of carrying the day. It knows no 
bounds.
  As it turns out, conservatism prevailed in Tennessee, and sanity 
prevailed in the U.S. Senate. I was humbled when Supreme Court Justice 
Brett Kavanaugh performed my ceremonial swearing-in this past January 
and when I received the additional honor of being one of two Republican 
women afforded a seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee--humbled, truly 
humbled, but also prepared to stand up for what I know is right.
  I will not abide by or participate in the lack of civility that we 
saw during Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation. We have to realize that 
this is more serious than just evaluating a final tally of political 
points on the board. Politicians, journalists, and activists are 
leveraging unfounded criminal allegations against a duly confirmed 
Supreme Court justice. I repeat that: They are leveraging unfounded 
criminal allegations against a duly confirmed Supreme Court justice in 
an effort to undermine not only his work but ultimately the entire 
Court as an institution.
  Is this honestly what we have come to? Is this the new low of lows? 
Can no one see the danger in doing this and letting it continue and 
giving it air to breathe or to thrive? This is a danger. We are a 
nation of laws, and the Senate is a body built on process and 
deliberation.
  Tennesseans are asking: Who is going to stand and who is going to 
defend that process in this body?
  As a woman, as a new Senator and a member of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, I stand to defend the process and for civility. I refuse to 
leave this political chaos unchecked, and I welcome my colleagues and 
my friends across the aisle to join me in recognizing that due process 
and civil discourse are required for constructive, respectful debate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The Senator from 
Montana.


                                Tariffs

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, we all returned to Washington last week 
after, in my case, spending 5 weeks in the State of Montana. It is 
always great being in Montana, being able to get around the State and 
visit with folks and see the challenges they are dealing with on a 
daily basis and hear directly from them.
  I can tell you that one of the things I heard a lot about--Montana is 
an ag State--was the price of grain and the price of cattle. The 
marketplace is very, very depressed. It doesn't matter that Montana is 
a big State, and it doesn't matter what corner of the State you are in. 
We have some challenges, and those challenges have been brought about 
by really, really bad public policy when it comes to tariffs. These 
tariffs have increased the price of steel, for example, which increases 
the price of the equipment that folks in agriculture and everybody have 
to buy.
  On the other side of the coin, because of the tariffs that are put on 
ag commodities, it has driven all ag commodities down. The tariffs on 
soy, for example, have driven all the commodities down, including 
wheat, which we raise

[[Page S5504]]

a lot of in Montana, but also pulse crops and everything.
  In fact, when I was determining what we were going to plant this 
spring, I was trying to find what we could make money off of. Quite 
frankly, commodity prices are down across the board, and there wasn't 
anything that you could turn a profit on. I don't say that being a 
farmer who wants to complain about prices, because we do that 
occasionally. I say that because the price of hard red ordinary winter 
wheat, which probably doesn't mean much to anybody unless you are in 
agriculture, is about the same price it was in about May of 1978, when 
I took the farm over. That is not inflation-adjusted prices. That is 
what it is selling for, a little over $3.50 a bushel.
  If you take a look back at 1978, it doesn't take a nuclear physicist 
to figure out that things cost a little less back then. You could buy a 
car for probably about 15 percent of what you are paying for one now, 
and farm equipment was the same way. It was far, far, far less 
expensive. My dad bought a brand-new four-wheel drive tractor, for 
example, 3 years earlier, in 1975. He paid about $20,000 for it, and 
today that tractor would run you north of $200,000.
  So we have a lot of challenges out there, and it all starts with the 
price of ag commodities. It isn't like Mother Nature frowned on us all 
and put us into a drought or put a hailstorm on us or put locusts on 
us. It is all man-made.
  I think most people in this body would tell you that, as to what is 
going on with China right now, even though China does need to be held 
accountable, we can't do it alone. We have to bring our allies in. That 
is why it is not working, and that is why ag commodity prices are in 
the tank.
  So why should anybody care if you are not involved in agriculture?
  There was an old bumper sticker that was on cars a few decades ago 
that said: If you eat, you are involved in agriculture. That is a fact. 
If you want to talk about things like food security and being able to 
have food on the shelves, those family farmers are critically 
important. If you force them out of business, that is more 
consolidation, that is less people living in rural America, and that is 
a problem, and it is less certainty with our food supply.
  We feed the world for a good reason--because there are a lot of 
family farmers out there who work very, very hard each and every day, 
and we overproduce, and the overproduced items need to be exported. If 
they are not, the prices go down. That is what we see right now. We see 
overproduction, because we produce food, and if that food is not 
exported, the prices go down, and they go down and they go down. Now 
they are prices that we had 40 years ago.
  Now, this administration's solution for this problem is to borrow 
money from our kids and write farmers checks. I don't know a farmer out 
there who wants to go down to the local FSA, or the Farm Service 
Agency, government office and get a check. We do it, but that is not 
the preferred place. The preferred place is from the grain elevator or 
from the livestock auction. But because prices are so low, now farmers 
have to have a bailout.
  People talk about socialism and who is advocating for socialism 
around here, but the fact is that this is pretty much socialistic. The 
sad part is that the amount farmers are getting is probably about a 
tenth, once again, of what they are losing in the marketplace, if we 
had trade, if we were out promoting trade, and if we were moving the 
ball forward to get rid of the excess production. But instead, it is 
tariff after tariff after tariff because we are trying to teach 
somebody a lesson. Unfortunately, because we don't have our allies 
onboard with us, we haven't seen much success.
  We have a problem. The forefathers set forth three coequal branches 
of government. Unfortunately, I have been a bit frustrated because the 
legislative branch hasn't been able to do much about these tariffs, and 
we need to reinsert ourselves.
  I have a bill that I intend to drop in very soon that will empower 
the legislative branch. Hopefully, we can get it through committee and 
get it to the floor. It seems that we always ask permission of the 
administration as to whether we are going to take up any bills on the 
floor in this body, the greatest deliberative body--it used to be; it 
is not anymore--when, in fact, we need to take back the power. We need 
to hold the administration, the executive branch--whether there is a 
Democrat in the White House or a Republican in the White House--
accountable on these issues that revolve around trade.
  It is important because we are having a debate right now about 
whether we should be just a rubberstamp for the executive branch on 
appropriations. We have given away our power on trade. It is our job to 
deal with issues of trade. I am talking about Congress's job. I have a 
bill to bring back some of that power.
  I will tell you, I hope that tomorrow all these tariffs and trade 
issues go away. I don't think that is realistic. In fact, I think we 
have seen a lot of our foreign trading partners that were traditionally 
our partners turn to other countries to get their products. I think 
that is a problem long term and certainly a problem short term because 
we are feeling it in the short term. When they start getting their ag 
commodities from Australia and Argentina or some other country, it is 
hard to get those customers back, even when the trade agreements have 
been ratified.
  I ask the executive branch to quit playing games with American 
agriculture. I know that most of the farmers support the Trump 
administration, but I am telling you, we saw a mass exodus off the 
farms in the 1980s--the family farm agriculture--because of bad 
policies, due in part to this town, and I am afraid we are going to see 
that again. I have already seen it in my neighborhood, and I think it 
is just the start.
  It is time that we start to do what we do; that is, we need to export 
some of this product.
  The Farmers Union was in last week, and one of the people in the 
Farmers Union, from the Montana group, said: What do we do about the 
excess supply? Well, what we do with the excess supply is what we have 
always done with the excess supply: We ship it out. We export it. And 
when those exports dry up, we have wheat. We can't get rid of soy. Corn 
is in a pinch. As I said earlier, all ag commodities are depressed.
  While we sit here and talk about the important stuff that we talk 
about, just know that the American farmer, the family farmer, is 
hurting. I will tell you that one thing that made this country great is 
family farm agriculture. If it gets consolidated, whether it is a 
family who owns tens of thousands of acres or controls tens of 
thousands of acres or whether it is a corporation, it is the same 
thing. You have nobody living in rural America, and it impacts our food 
security in this country. Quite frankly, it is very bad for democracy.
  I invited the President to come to Montana to visit with the 
producers so he could hear it from their mouths. I haven't gotten a 
response. The bottom line is, he needs to know that rural America is 
not New York City. It has challenges, and if we don't do our job and 
get products exported, we are going to see it change, we are going to 
see it dry up, and we are literally going to see it blow away. It is 
not a step forward. It is not making this country great. In fact, it is 
exactly the opposite.
  I hope the President comes to Montana. I hope he visits with the 
producers. He will find a friendly crowd. I think most of them voted 
for him. He will be able to hear from the horse's mouth what is 
happening with trade and hopefully get these trade tariffs and all the 
things around trade that have been negative for family farm agriculture 
put behind us. I think time is of the essence. It may be too late for a 
lot of folks. We may see a lot of good operators no longer able to make 
a living in agriculture. Time is of the essence.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S5505]]

  



                                 Taxes

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit today about 
something I am embarrassed about on behalf of the Federal Government. 
Before I explain why I am embarrassed on behalf of my government, I 
need to give a little background.
  Did you ever stop and think about how much we pay in taxes in this 
country? We have city taxes. We have county taxes. In Louisiana, we 
call our counties parishes, so we have parish taxes. We have State 
taxes. We have fees at all of those levels. Sometimes politicians will 
try to call a hand in your pocket a fee as opposed to a tax, like you 
are going to be dumb enough to think that makes a difference. It is 
still money out of your pocket. And then we have Federal taxes. The 
government taxes the food we eat, the clothes we buy, the houses we 
live in, the cars we drive. The government taxes when we work and when 
we play. If you want to go fishing, you have to pay a tax. If you want 
to go hunting, you have to pay a tax. The government even taxes us when 
we die.
  Let me talk about the Federal taxes for a second. This is just a 
fraction of the money people pay. At the Federal level, our main tax is 
income taxes--corporate income tax, personal income tax. Do you know 
how much we pay every year--the American people--in corporate and 
personal income tax? I am going to show you. I am going to write it out 
because it is impressive. Do you see all those zeros? There are 12 
zeros--$2 trillion every year. Do you know how much $2 trillion is? 
That is $2,000 billion. Do you know how much a billion is? If right now 
I started counting to a billion, do you know when I would finish? It 
would take me 32 years. I would finish in 2051. I wouldn't make it; I 
will be dead by then.

  I will tell you how big a billion is. A billion seconds ago, it was 
1986 and Ronald Reagan was President. That is how big a billion is. A 
billion minutes ago, the Romans were conquering Mesopotamia. A billion 
hours ago, Neanderthals roamed the Earth. That is 1 billion. The 
American people pay $2,000 billion in taxes every year--not State and 
not local; Federal corporate and personal income taxes.
  Now, look, we know that as a result of the social contract we have 
made among ourselves, we are better off living and working together and 
pooling our money so we can hire cops and build roads and educate our 
children. We know that is the price to pay in a civilized society, but 
that is still a lot of money.
  Now, I don't know about you, but I get mad when some people cheat--
when all people whom I know of cheat on their taxes. That means that 
law-abiding citizens have to pay more to make up for those who cheat.
  Do you know what else makes me mad? What also makes me mad is when 
the Federal entity to which we pay these taxes has money of ours and 
they don't return it. I am not talking about tax refunds. I am talking 
about something else, and that is going to be the subject of my talk 
for a few minutes today.
  Now, look, the Internal Revenue Service, which is housed, as you 
know, in the Department of Treasury--they are very aggressive. Oh Lord, 
you better pay your taxes. If you don't pay your taxes, they are on you 
like a hobo on a ham sandwich. They will chase you like a hound from 
Hades. You better pay them the right amount, and you better pay them on 
time. Most Americans don't like that but are OK with it because they 
know we have to run government, we have to defend our country, and we 
have to educate our kids. But what happens when the Department of 
Treasury, which houses the Internal Revenue Service, owes money to the 
American people and refuses to give it back? That is what embarrasses 
me, and that is what makes me angry.
  Right now, our U.S. Department of Treasury is holding $26 billion--
remember I told you how big a billion is--it owes to the American 
people in unclaimed, matured savings bonds. And you know what a savings 
bond is. That is a loan by an American citizen to our government. We 
funded World War II in part through savings bonds.
  This is how a savings bond works. It is very simple. Let's suppose I 
go buy a $100 savings bond. I give $100 to the U.S. Department of 
Treasury, which collects $2 trillion through IRS. I give $100 to the 
Department of Treasury. It is a loan. The Treasury takes that $100 and 
promises to give me in, say, 20 years, $200 back. I don't get annual 
interest payments. There are some exceptions to that. In the old days, 
I got a paper bond. Today, it is all done electronically. I loan the 
Federal Government $100. I wait 20 years, and interest accrues. I don't 
get the checks. In 2 years, I go down with my savings bond, and I say: 
OK, I want my $200.
  But sometimes people forget. They put those bonds in a safe deposit 
box or--today, we don't use paper bonds; we do it electronically. 
People will forget. In the old days when we used paper bonds, sometimes 
they would lose those bonds. A lot of times, as a birthday present, 
grandparents would give a bond to their grandchildren, give them a $100 
bond, and they would say to their son or grandson or granddaughter: 
Hold on to this bond, and in 20 years, you will have $200. Of course, 
sometimes the young people would lose them. They are not really 
completely lost. The bond might have been lost--the physical bond--in 
the days when we used paper bonds.
  The people who loaned the money to the Federal Government might have 
forgotten about the bonds, but do you know who knows about the bonds? 
The U.S. Department of Treasury, because they have the names and the 
addresses. Right now, they have the names and addresses, and they have 
the money--$26 billion--that they are holding that belongs to the 
American people, and they won't give it back.
  I used to be a State treasurer in Louisiana. I and some my colleagues 
sued the Federal Department of Treasury. Do you know why we sued them? 
Because as State treasurers, we have programs called unclaimed property 
programs--you might have heard about them--where we would return money 
to people in our States that we would take in from businesses that owed 
people money but couldn't find the people.
  Let's suppose you go rent an apartment back in your home State. You 
put down a utility deposit, and you move and you don't get back your 
utility deposit. You forget about it. The utility can't keep that 
deposit. They are supposed to look for you, but they can't find you. 
They can't keep that money. It doesn't belong to them. It is a deposit. 
They have to turn it over to the State treasurer.
  The State treasurers of every State work very hard to contact the 
people and to give them back their utility deposits. Every day, State 
treasurers return utility deposits, apartment deposits, uncashed 
payroll checks, lost stocks, lost bonds, and tax refunds. Every State 
treasurer is very active. They have the infrastructure set up, they 
have websites, they have computers, and they return this money to 
people every day. When a business has your money and can't find you, 
they can't keep it; they have to turn it over to the State treasurer.
  So the treasurers sued the U.S. Department of Treasury and said: We 
have these unclaimed property programs. Give us the names and addresses 
of these people to whom the Treasury Department owes $26 billion, and 
we will give it back to people.
  Do you know what the Department of Treasury said? Nothing. Not a 
thing. They just ignored the treasurers. When we finally got their 
attention, they said: No, we are not giving it back. We are keeping the 
money.

  Well, the treasurers sued them and are still in court. And not only 
has the U.S. Department of Treasury not given the money back, they have 
gone and hired lawyers. They are spending millions and millions and 
millions of dollars to try to keep this money from the American people.
  Remember, the U.S. Department of Treasury--they have the names and 
they have the addresses. They may be old addresses, but all they would 
have to do would be to give the names and the old addresses to the 
State treasurers in every State. For example, in my State in 
Louisiana--and we have asked Treasury to do this. The U.S. Department 
of Treasury could just give all the names of all the people in 
Louisiana to whom this money is owed through savings bonds and give 
them the addresses, and the treasurer in my State will track these 
people down and give them back their money. But the U.S. Department of 
Treasury won't do

[[Page S5506]]

it. They are fighting us in court. Do you know why they won't do it? 
Greed. They figure people will never go claim their money. They are 
just going to keep it. You can't do that if you are a business. If you 
are a business in America and you have somebody's money, you have to go 
look for them--it is a law in every State--and if you can't find them, 
you have to turn the money over to the State treasurer, and the State 
treasurer gives it back. Not the Federal Government. Not the Department 
of Treasury. We are talking real money here.
  I am going to give an example. I see my good friend Senator Cornyn 
over here. He works hard for the people of Texas. They love him. I just 
came back from San Antonio. They love Senator Cornyn. Do you know how 
much the U.S. Department of Treasury owes Senator Cornyn's people just 
in Texas? They are owed $2.1 billion. This money isn't lost; the 
Department of Treasury has it. They have the names, and they have the 
addresses.
  Now, as we went along in our lawsuit--and the lawsuit is still 
pending. It is not mine anymore. I am no longer State treasurer. One of 
the statements that the Department of Treasury filed in court--I almost 
laughed. If I had been in court, I would have laughed. They said: Yeah, 
we have the names and we have the addresses, but it would cost $128 
million to organize the records. That was one of the excuses they gave 
to the judge. Give me a break. If you believe that, you will never own 
your own home. If you and I lie to the government, we can go to jail, 
but if the government lies to us--``Oh, it will take $128 million to 
organize the records''--that is called politics. Oklahoma, which is 
next door to Texas, is owed $312 million. As far as Michigan, the U.S. 
Department of Treasury is holding $773 million in fully redeemed--they 
are not paying interest anymore--but unclaimed savings bonds from the 
people of Michigan. Do you think some of those folks in Michigan could 
use that money right now to maybe save for retirement or maybe to 
educate their children? Idaho is not very big. It has a bunch of lakes, 
and it is a great State. It is owed $128 million. Tennessee is owed 
$480 million; Wyoming, $45 million; and New York, $1.5 billion.
  I am just beside myself. Do you wonder why people hate government? 
Here it is. We have to pay our taxes in the right amount and on time. 
If we don't do it, they come and take our firstborn, and if we are 
late, they fine us. This is the IRS under the Department of Treasury. 
But here they have $26 billion, and they have the names and they have 
the addresses, and they won't give it back. It is an embarrassment. It 
is a disgrace. They should hide their heads in a bag.
  Now, I have a bill. I am hoping my colleagues will support it. It is 
called the Unclaimed Savings Bond Act of 2019, S. 2417. It is a very 
simple bill. It would just tell the U.S. Department of Treasury to do 
its job. It doesn't own this money. It doesn't own this money, it is 
not theirs, and they need to give it back. And they don't have to spend 
a lot of time on it. All they have to do is give the names and the 
addresses to every State treasurer. I will give them their cell numbers 
if they want it. Just give the names and the addresses to the State 
treasurers.
  I would like to get our Senators involved in Florida, where our 
Presiding Officer and Senator Rubio are from. I would like them to have 
the names. Maybe they could go out--we used to do this when we had 
unclaimed property in Louisiana. You can go advertise in the paper or 
on the radio or on television or on the internet and say: I am going to 
be out at the so-and-so mall this Saturday from 10 to 12 with my 
computers and my team's computers. Come on out and check your name and 
see if you have unredeemed savings bonds.
  People come out, and you would be surprised, they find their name, 
and you say: OK. We will get your current address, and we will get you 
a check in 2 weeks. People say: Gosh, the last time the government gave 
me any money was never. But they feel a little bit better about their 
government.
  This bill will work. I can't imagine who would oppose this bill 
except my friends at the Department of Treasury, and they don't have a 
good reason for opposing it. They just want to keep the money.
  I am going to be talking about this a lot because the money is 
important. People have worked hard for this. But I will tell you what 
is more important--the principle. We have to pay our taxes in the right 
amount and on time. When the government has our money, they ought to 
give it back to us in the right amount and on time.
  Thank you for your attention and your time.
  I yield to Senator Cornyn, who has over $2 billion of uncashed 
savings bonds in his State, thanks to our Department of Treasury.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me begin my remarks by thanking my 
friend for, No. 1, visiting Texas this past weekend. We are next-door 
neighbors. We share a lot in common. But, particularly, I want to thank 
him for highlighting this injustice. It is shocking to me that a U.S. 
Senator would have to introduce legislation to pass both Houses and get 
the President's signature for people to get their money back from the 
Federal Government. It is shocking, and I didn't know anything about it 
until the Senator from Louisiana highlighted it, so I thank him for 
that.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill and would encourage all of 
our colleagues to join. I can't imagine why it couldn't pass by 
unanimous consent. I don't even know why we need to process this 
through the normal regular order, as we call it around here, but I wish 
him good luck and certainly my constituents would like to see that $2.1 
billion back in their pockets instead of the Federal Treasury. So I 
thank him.


                           Prescription Drugs

  Mr. President, on another matter, during the August break back home, 
I heard from a startling number of my constituents about their 
increasing struggles to deal with the cost of their prescription 
medications. This included stories about skipping their blood pressure 
medication or diabetics rationing their insulin and people traveling 
across the border, going to Mexico--to the farmacias in Mexico--to get 
inhalers at a lower price. Of course, the problem is, you don't know 
when you go to another country whether it is as advertised, whether it 
is counterfeit, or whether it is genuine. So there are risks associated 
with that. But my point is that people are struggling to deal with 
their drug costs, and they are going to extraordinary means, some of 
which are potentially dangerous to their health.
  I know my constituents back home are frustrated by confusing price 
hikes. They don't understand the dramatic price differences from one 
pharmacy to the next. They are terrified about what will happen if the 
price gets so high that they will have to give up taking their 
prescriptions altogether.
  It is no surprise that a recent Gallup poll found that Americans view 
the pharmaceutical industry more negatively than any other industry. A 
whopping 58 percent said that they have a negative view of the 
pharmaceutical industry, and 48 percent have a negative view of the 
healthcare industry as a whole. Congress's numbers are much worse than 
that, but the point is, people are concerned, and they want us to do 
something about it.
  When the products and services these groups provide mean the 
difference between life and death--which they do--that lack of trust is 
a bad sign, to be sure. I believe, along with many of my colleagues, 
that it is time to get to the bottom of these rising costs and provide 
the American people with some transparency, some clarity, some peace of 
mind, and hopefully a break in their out-of-pocket costs for 
prescription drugs.
  In the Senate we have taken a bipartisan approach that reaches across 
several of our standing committees, and we have made some serious 
progress. I would like to remind anybody who is listening what we have 
done so far and what we need to do next.
  Earlier this summer, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee passed a package to end surprise billing to create 
more transparency and create more competition. The Senate Finance 
Committee on which I sit passed a package of bills designed to reduce 
prescription drug prices for seniors and children, and the Judiciary 
Committee, on which I also

[[Page S5507]]

sit, has passed several bills to lower the cost of prescription drugs 
and stop bad actors from gaming the system.
  We have talked to every major player in the supply chain and have 
asked questions about the confusing practices that are driving up 
costs. Of course, I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the 
Presiding Officer's leadership when it comes to this topic, 
knowledgeable as he is about the healthcare industry, beyond the 
average Senator.

  One example of the problem is the anti-competitive behavior of drug 
manufacturers. Companies pour extensive time and money into research 
and development of new medications, and that is good. What they get in 
return is the ability to recover their costs and earn a profit under a 
patent. These patents justifiably protect the intellectual property of 
these drugs for a time and are a key driver behind the incredible 
innovation that occurs here in the United States.
  The United States discovers and manufactures more innovative and 
lifesaving drugs than any other country in the world, but we are 
increasingly seeing companies using the patent system as a shield for 
competition beyond the life of a patent, and it is time we put that to 
a stop.
  One of the bills in the Judiciary Committee that I introduced is 
called the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act, which would 
address two circumstances that lead to higher drug costs. First is 
something called product hopping, which occurs when a company develops 
a reformulation of a product that is about to lose its patent and pulls 
the original product from the market. This is done not because the new 
formula is more effective, necessarily, but because it prevents generic 
competitors from competing with the original product.
  One example is a drug called Namenda, which is used by patients with 
Alzheimer's disease, a terrible, devastating disease. Near the end of 
the exclusivity period, the manufacturers switched from a twice-daily 
drug to a once-daily drug. That move, under the current law, prevented 
pharmacists from being able to switch patients to a lower cost 
generic--even though it is just as effective--so the company could 
continue to earn a profit under this exclusivity provision under the 
patent laws. By defining these types of anti-competitive behaviors, the 
Federal Trade Commission would be able to bring antitrust suits against 
the bad actors who deliberately game the system.
  Secondly, the bill disarms patent thickets, which occur when an 
innovator uses multiple overlapping patents or patents with identical 
claims to make it harder for competitors to enter the field. One 
example is the drug HUMIRA, which is commonly used to treat arthritis 
and a number of other conditions. AbbVie, the manufacturer of HUMIRA, 
has 136 patents and 247 patent applications on that drug, which has 
been available for more than 15 years. This type of behavior makes it 
very difficult for biosimilar manufacturers to bring a product to 
market--competition. While the patent on the actual drug formula may 
have expired, there are still, in this case, hundreds of other patents 
to sort through. Litigating all of these extraneous patents is 
expensive, difficult, and unnecessary. This artificial structure denies 
market entry for competitors years beyond the exclusivity period that 
the law intends to grant. Today, there are five competitors of HUMIRA 
that are available in Europe, but they are blocked from being sold in 
the United States until 2023.
  This bill will not stifle innovation or punish those who use the 
patent system as it is intended; it simply stops the bad guys from 
profiting off the backs of patients. This is a critical component of 
our efforts to bring down drug costs, and I am glad this proposal 
received unanimous support in the Judiciary Committee.
  Later this week, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee is 
holding a hearing about pharmaceutical companies gaming the system, and 
I am eager to see what kinds of proposals our friends in the House 
introduce as part of this effort.
  I think it is fair to say that we have done some serious work here in 
the Senate when it comes to reducing prescription drug costs, but we 
have work ahead of us to do. In other words, we have to bring them to 
the floor for a vote, and I hope we do so soon.
  I appreciate the countless Texans who have reached out and 
communicated with me and who continue to reach out to share their 
concerns and their stories about unnecessarily high out-of-pocket drug 
costs. I am committed to working with all of our colleagues across the 
aisle to address these rising healthcare costs generally and to ensure 
that drug companies put patients before profits.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                    Nomination of John Rakolta, Jr.

  Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the 
nomination of Mr. John Rakolta to become the Ambassador to the United 
Arab Emirates.
  Mr. Rakolta is the owner of a construction company that builds major 
projects like factories, churches, hospitals, and airports. His firm 
guides the work of thousands of workers here in the United States and 
in countries around the globe. With revenues of approximately $1.7 
billion annually, he has built one of the largest and most successful 
general contractors in the Nation.
  I presume this success has made him a prosperous person, but he is 
also a person who is actively engaged in his community. He has served 
on the boards of numerous organizations, several of which have focused 
on the rejuvenation of his city of Detroit and its less advantaged 
citizens. He has also received so many awards that it would be 
impractical to list them all here today, but I note that he has been 
honored by such groups as United Way, the Michigan Black Chamber of 
Commerce, the Urban League of Detroit, the Boy Scouts of America, and 
New Detroit.
  Of course, my friends on the other side of the aisle are dutiful in 
their examination of any possible flaw. I am convinced that the 
concerns they may have raised are not well-founded, and he is, in fact, 
entirely qualified and appropriately nominated to this important 
position.
  I note that I am biased in favor of Mr. Rakolta because I have known 
him personally for more than 30 years. He and his family have spent 
dozens of evenings in the home of my parents, studying the teachings of 
their faith. He is a man who makes commitments only after a great deal 
of thought, and when they are made, he is fully loyal to them in his 
business, in his community, in his Nation, in his faith, and in his 
marriage and family of 4 children and 11 grandchildren.
  I know John Rakolta as a man of honor and integrity, and I am 
convinced that he will serve the country well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The question is, Will the 
Senate advise and consent to the Rakolta nomination?
  Mr. ROMNEY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Roberts).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), 
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California 
(Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 283 Ex.]

                                YEAS--63

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe

[[Page S5508]]


     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Van Hollen
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--30

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Reed
     Rosen
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Smith
     Udall
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Alexander
     Bennet
     Booker
     Harris
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Warren
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________