EXECUTIVE CALENDAR; Congressional Record Vol. 166, No. 4
(Senate - January 08, 2020)

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 S70-S75]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Michael 
George DeSombre, of Illinois, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom of 
Thailand.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                                  Iran

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday evening, Iran launched more than 
a dozen ballistic missiles against military bases in Iraq, which house 
U.S. troops.
  After General Qasem Soleimani was killed in a targeted drone strike 
late last week in an act of self-defense and to deter further 
aggression against America and our allies, our forces were on high 
alert for an Iranian attack. President Trump and our military leaders 
emphasized that we would be prepared for whatever response Iran chose 
to deliver, and by all accounts we were.
  If the present circumstances hold, it appears that no U.S. 
servicemembers were harmed during this attack last night by Iran, which 
is the best outcome we could have hoped for. In addition, I am glad no 
Iraqi troops appear to have been injured or killed in this strike as 
well.
  While the result of this provocation by Iran could have been a lot 
worse, it does not diminish the fact that the world's leading state 
sponsor of terrorism has a sophisticated and capable ballistic program. 
We know that those capabilities only accelerated under the Joint 
Comprehensive Plan of Action--the so-called nuclear deal during the 
previous administration--as has the regime's pursuit of their nuclear 
aspirations.
  I am confident that this administration's maximum-pressure campaign, 
combined with our unparalleled military capabilities, as well as the 
President's decisive actions that have culminated in the airstrike last 
week, have prevented a much worse outcome from this attack by Iran.
  Last week, I had the opportunity to visit Strategic Command, 
STRATCOM, in Omaha, NE, where their motto is ``strategic deterrence.'' 
I think that is an important goal to keep in mind; that is, having the 
means and capabilities not only of hitting back but a message of 
deterrence to our adversaries to dissuade them from initiating 
hostilities in the first place.
  President Ronald Reagan had his own notion of strategic deterrence. 
He called it ``peace through strength.'' I believe that is something 
the President's actions last week have begun to restore, no less a 
luminary than former GEN David Petraeus, who said, after the Soleimani 
attack, that perhaps--just perhaps--this would reestablish deterrence. 
Indeed, based on the response by the Iranian regime last night, where 
they obviously targeted uninhabited areas, and they wanted to save face 
by showing that they were doing something to retaliate but not wanting 
to escalate, I think General Petraeus is right on. What has happened, 
to this point, is reestablishing some level of deterrence.
  I applaud the President for speaking to the American people this 
morning and making it clear that, under his watch, Iran will never ever 
have a nuclear weapon. In my view, this is the single most important 
policy objective for the United States and our allies in the Middle 
East.
  Deterrence through strength, combined with additional economic 
sanctions, are designed to encourage and persuade the Iranian regime to 
rejoin the community of nations, which will help pave the way for a 
better way of life for the Iranian people and to give up these tools of 
terror which have characterized the Iranian regime since 1979, since 
the revolution--exporting that terror to other countries. There was no 
one more responsible for doing that than General Soleimani, who was 
taken out in an airstrike last week.
  As we move forward, the United States and our allies can't turn back. 
We can't relieve this maximum-pressure campaign, and we also must 
remain cognizant of the dangers of creating power vacuums in the Middle 
East.
  I also hope our allies in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom 
will work with us to persuade the U.N. to invoke the snapback 
provisions under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to restore 
international sanctions and restrictions on the Iranian regime to 
further persuade them to join us in negotiations, which will lead to a 
better outcome for all. It will be helpful if our friends and allies in 
the UK, France, and Germany will join us in that effort.
  While the United States has not purposely sought out further conflict 
that could lead to an unnecessary loss of life, we need to defend--we 
must always defend American personnel and our interests in the Middle 
East.
  As the President has pointed out this morning, one of the things 
that, historically, has given Presidents like Jimmy Carter the 
determination to declare the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz as an act 
of war during his administration was our overdependence on energy from 
the Middle East. As the President pointed out this morning, thanks to 
the creativity and innovation in places like Oklahoma, Texas, North 
Dakota, and elsewhere, we are now largely energy independent and self-
sufficient. We can now use this as a tool to engage other countries 
that are completely dependent on countries like Russia, Iran, and 
others in the Middle East for their energy needs. So this is changing 
the geopolitics of the world. This is not just the President taking a 
divisive action against the leading master of terrorism in the Middle 
East; the geopolitics of the world have shifted, and I hope we will all 
work together to take advantage of that.
  As I said, I appreciate the President's courage and leadership. This 
must have been no easy decision, to be sure. I continue to be proud of 
our military leadership and the rank-and-file servicemembers who have 
worked so hard to protect the United States and our national interests 
in the Middle East and around the world.


                         Senate Accomplishments

  Mr. President, on another matter, I spoke last week on the Senate 
floor about some of the great things that have been accomplished this 
last year for our country, including my home State of Texas.
  I pointed out that we notched a number of wins for the American 
military as well as our veterans. We sent much needed assistance to 
communities devastated by natural disasters, like Hurricane Harvey and 
others. We confirmed more qualified judges to the Federal bench. We 
invested heavily in securing America's elections from the sort of 
interference we saw occur in the last Presidential election, and I am 
proud to say we strengthened our fight to end the rape kit backlog.

[[Page S71]]

  We made strides, big and small, to improve the lives of the American 
people, and I am eager to add more wins to that list this year.
  Unfortunately, Congress is starting this year in a rather 
inauspicious way, not designed to regain the confidence of the American 
people and our ability to do what benefits them as opposed to 
satisfying some partisan political interest.
  High on that list of pretty embarrassing developments are the 
Articles of Impeachment that the House passed. Three weeks after the 
House said this urgent matter must be pushed through to protect the 
country and defend the Constitution, Speaker Pelosi is still refusing 
to send those Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, and we are 
waiting. Now, I would be happy if she never sent the Articles of 
Impeachment here and realizes the error of the House's ways, but I 
don't expect that to happen.
  In the meantime, we are going to continue to confirm well-qualified 
nominees, as we are today, and hopefully we will be able to do work on 
the USMCA--the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement--which, as the 
Presiding Officer knows, we voted out of the Senate Finance Committee 
yesterday but which has to clear six other committees before it is 
ready for floor action. Hopefully, we will be able to get that done 
sooner rather than later.
  With an impending impeachment trial consuming most of the oxygen here 
in Washington, there is not a lot of opportunity, let alone political 
will, to get actual legislating done.
  There is a laundry list of bills we could add to our accomplishments 
in 2020, but there is an opportunity cost when we are squandering our 
time on this ill-considered impeachment mania. The time and effort we 
are spending on that could well be used to pass these other pieces of 
legislation, but these pieces of legislation wait in impeachment 
purgatory.
  At the top of my list this year is legislation to bring down 
healthcare costs to the American people, particularly out-of-pocket 
costs for prescription drugs--something I thought was a high priority 
for Members on both sides of the aisle as well as the White House.
  Over the summer, the Senate Judiciary, Finance, and Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committees passed bipartisan bills which 
deal with everything from high prescription drug prices to surprise 
medical billing. While we knew there was still additional work that 
needed to be done, everyone was somewhat optimistic that we could pass 
some combination of these bills by the end of last year. Unfortunately, 
that didn't happen.
  Negotiations are continuing, but I had hoped we could make progress 
on some noncontroversial bills in the meantime, like the one I 
introduced to stop drugmakers from gaming the patent system.
  I just read this morning that the manufacturer of HUMIRA, which is an 
incredible drug and the most widely prescribed drug in America, is 
raising their list price by 7 percent. This is a drug that has generic 
competitors overseas, but they are not approved here in the United 
States because HUMIRA has gamed the patent system by acquiring more 
than 120 different patents on this drug, the same one that is being 
sold cheaper and more widely available in Europe.
  The bill I introduced with Mr. Blumenthal, the Senator from 
Connecticut, to deal with that is called the Affordable Prescriptions 
for Patients Act. It strikes a delicate balance of protecting 
innovation while increasing competition. It would be a win for every 
American who has felt the sticker shock at the pharmacy. This bill is a 
modest bill, but it represents real progress. Bipartisan support--check 
that box. I introduced this bill with Senator Blumenthal from 
Connecticut, as I mentioned, and I am proud to have the support of the 
minority whip as well as the ranking member of the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee. This passed out of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee unanimously.
  Well, does it increase the deficit? No, it actually helps the 
deficit, so we can check that box. The Congressional Budget Office 
estimates the bill would save the government more than half a billion 
dollars over the next decade, not to mention what it might do to 
private insurance costs.
  During simpler times, this bill would have been quickly approved by 
the Senate and sent to the House for their consideration and the 
President's signature. If we have learned anything these last few 
years, it is that nothing is simple here in Congress or in Washington.
  So, after waiting for months, I came to the Senate floor to ask that 
the bill be passed. After all, it sailed through the process, and I 
hadn't heard a single Senator with any substantive objection to the 
bill. That is when the Democratic leader, the Senator from New York, 
came down here to block it, and he did it not once but twice. He didn't 
object on substance. In fact, he admitted it was a good bill. As I 
said, it checks every box when it comes to good legislation, so it 
certainly wasn't because it fell short there.
  The only reason the Democratic leader objected to this legislation on 
two separate occasions is because of politics. He has chosen to 
participate in political games with a bill that is noncontroversial and 
straightforward, which would stop Big Pharma from abusing the patent 
system to increase their profits and increase prices to consumers.
  At a time when he views his most critical priority as minority leader 
to oppose the President and, in turn, Senate Republicans, he couldn't 
stand to see a bill introduced by a Republican actually advance and 
become law. I am sure his constituents in New York can't be too happy 
about that because they are paying the high price of patent 
gamesmanship too. I can guarantee you that Big Pharma is rejoicing over 
his obstruction.
  Well, as I said just this last week, big drug companies have already 
begun to announce their price increases. According to their analysis, 
445 different drugs have had their prices raised already by an average 
of 5 percent, and we are only 1 week into the new year.
  It is particularly maddening that even consensus legislation is 
getting caught up in this hyperpartisan environment. But I am hoping 
that, once this looming impeachment trial is behind us, we can find a 
way to work together and make some progress.
  Another bill that I am anxious to see pass this year is a 
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which again has 
gotten caught up in partisan gamesmanship. Last year the House passed 
an ultrapartisan bill, which both parties knew would be dead on arrival 
in the Senate. Our friends, the House Democrats, chose to include a 
variety of poison pills in order to prove a point and perhaps gain some 
political advantage rather than to actually get a bill to the 
President's desk.
  Well, that is where Senator Feinstein, the Senator from California, 
and Senator Ernst, the Senator from Iowa, to their credit, tried long 
and hard to try to come up with a bill that we could take up here on 
the Senate floor, but all of a sudden, late in the game, our friends 
across the aisle walked away from the negotiating table and chose to 
introduce a near replica of the House's partisan piece of legislation.
  Unfortunately, they succumbed to the politics of the moment rather 
than solving the problem that would actually help support victims of 
violence and reauthorize that legislation. Despite our Democratic 
colleagues leaving those negotiations, though, our colleague from Iowa, 
Senator Ernst, continued to work in good faith on a bill to reauthorize 
the Violence Against Women Act, and I am proud to be a cosponsor.
  I urge the majority leader to put that piece of legislation on the 
floor and to do it at the earliest possible moment so that we can have 
a vote, we can have a debate, we can offer amendments, but we can 
actually get the job done rather than continuing to use this as a 
political football. It sends more funding and resources than the bill 
that the Democrats have proposed, and it authorizes the program for 
twice as long.
  It is not just an alternative; it is a better choice for victims of 
sexual assault and violence. It includes a whole lot more than funding, 
though. It addresses a number of horrific crimes that are being 
committed against women and girls around the country, which are not 
included in our Democrat colleagues' version.
  I regret that we were unable to pass a reauthorization for the 
Violence

[[Page S72]]

Against Women Act, and I hope our colleagues across the aisle will 
reconsider and come back to the negotiating table and work with us so 
that we can finally reauthorize this program.


              United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement

  Mr. President, finally, another priority that I alluded to a moment 
ago that I hope we can get to soon is to pass the USMCA, the United 
States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which will succeed NAFTA and guide our 
trading relationships with Mexico and Canada into the future.
  NAFTA has been a boon for our economy--especially in my State, in 
Texas--but it is time to bring this more than quarter-century-old 
agreement into the 21st century. That is precisely what the USMCA will 
do. It modernizes trade with our northern and southern neighbors and 
lays the foundation for better economies, more jobs, and greater 
prosperity for each of our countries.
  The process of getting that bill across the Senate floor has been 
more than a year in the making, but we are making some progress, as I 
indicated, starting yesterday in the Senate Finance Committee. It was 
reported out with a bipartisan vote of 25 for and 3 against.
  I haven't been shy about expressing my concerns about how this 
process has played out, especially cutting the Senate out of its 
negotiating position under trade promotion authority, but I do believe, 
on net, that this agreement is beneficial and will support it.
  So I look forward to getting an opportunity, presumably once Speaker 
Pelosi sends the Articles of Impeachment over here and it meets its 
expected fate. Nobody I know expects 67 Senators to vote to convict and 
to remove President Trump based on the thin gruel presented by the two 
Articles of Impeachment that were voted on by the House in an 
ultrapartisan manner.
  Once we get past all of that, I hope we can continue along the series 
of wins for our country in 2020, and I, for one, am eager to work on 
that. I hope we will be able to chart a path forward on an impeachment 
trial in the near future so that we can begin focusing on this 
legislation that will help the American people over the next 12 months 
and not squander a minute more than absolutely necessary.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                       Senate Legislative Agenda

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the comments by my 
colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, when he talked about impeachment 
purgatory and the fact that the Senate is unable to act on critical 
legislation--many bills that have already passed the House of 
Representatives--because of the impeachment proceedings.
  Well, the impeachment proceedings have not started in the U.S. 
Senate. So what is the excuse? Was it the impeachment proceeding that 
stopped us from considering one bill in the Senate this week? Was it 
the impeachment proceeding that stopped us from considering one bill in 
the Senate last week? No, it was the conscious decision of the Senate 
majority leader, Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, with the 
Republican majority, not to call a single piece of legislation in the 
last 2 weeks.
  There shouldn't be any surprise among the membership that we did 
nothing in the last 2 weeks other than a few garden-variety 
nominations. The fact is, we have done nothing for a long time under 
Senator McConnell's leadership. Do you know, for the record, how many 
amendments were actually debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate last 
year in the entire calendar year? Twenty-two. Twenty-two amendments, 
six offered by the junior Senator from Kentucky. If I am not mistaken, 
all of them were defeated, but the point I am trying to make is, 22 
amendments in 1 year and now the Republican majority is blaming Speaker 
Pelosi and the impeachment proceedings for the fact that we do nothing. 
It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't add up.
  We are doing nothing because that is the strategy of Senator 
McConnell. The House of Representatives has passed hundreds--not a 
dozen, hundreds--of bills for the Senate to consider, on every 
imaginable topic: issues relating to healthcare, which we heard about 
from the Senator from Texas; issues relating to immigration. The litany 
is long. Within that litany, you would think that Senator McConnell 
could find one bill--just one--from the House of Representatives to 
debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate, but we don't do that in the 
Senate. We no longer debate under Senator McConnell's leadership.
  Some people look at this room and call it the Senate Chamber. That is 
true; it is the Senate Chamber. Now, sadly, it is more the Senate 
storage facility. We store on the floor of the Senate Chamber the desks 
of former Senators who actually legislated on the floor of the Senate. 
It is not a museum because there is still some active business 
underway, but it is a storage facility.
  These desks, if they could only speak, would tell the stories of men 
and women who stood up on the floor and debated critical issues. I was 
here for some of it. Issues of war and peace--we don't take those up 
anymore. If a President wants to go to war in Iran, obviously, his 
party thinks that we shouldn't interfere with his thought process, 
though the Constitution states clearly we are supposed to interfere. 
Congress has the authority, under the Constitution, to declare war.
  When issues would come up before us--important issues--in the past, 
we would debate them at length, whether it was health insurance for 
Americans, whether we were talking about questions of the disabled in 
America being active participants in our society, a time when Senators 
from both sides of the aisle stood up in this Chamber and, in a lengthy 
debate, passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. One was Senator Bob 
Dole, a disabled veteran from World War II and Republican leader; 
another was Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa. The two of them had a 
bipartisan measure and a real fulsome debate that doesn't happen on 
this floor of this Senate Chamber anymore.
  For Senators to come here and blame Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the 
House, for our inactivity is laughable. We have failed to move forward 
because the leadership does not want to call the bill. Senator 
McConnell has the authority to decide what we will debate on the floor 
of the U.S. Senate, and he has decided we will debate nothing--nothing.
  What a wasted opportunity. If America was just picture-perfect from 
sea to shining sea, you would say: Well, there is no reason. We don't 
need a Senate or a House. We know better. There are important issues we 
should address, issues related to challenges facing families across 
America; issues of the mounting student debt across this country and 
what it has meant to hundreds of thousands of young people and their 
future; the issues involving gun violence in this country, where we 
still have mass killings yet can't even pass one bill to keep guns out 
of the hands of convicted felons and people who are mentally unstable; 
the issue of healthcare.
  I certainly agree with the Senator from Texas when it comes to the 
cost of prescription drugs, the No. 1 concern of families across this 
country. All Senator Schumer has asked for is that we bring this 
measure to the floor and let Senator Cornyn's good idea be brought to 
the floor with Senator Durbin's good idea--and perhaps other Senators' 
good ideas--and actually have a debate right here on the floor of the 
Senate. It would be amazing. People would be tuned in all across 
America saying: You can't imagine; the Senate is alive; it is actually 
considering measures.
  Although, we don't. Twenty-two amendments in one calendar year--it is 
just amazing that we have reached that point.


                          Political Prisoners

  Mr. President, I come to the floor to address three specific issues. 
One of the first is a matter that I didn't know would actually be part 
of my responsibility as a Senator, but over the years my staff came to 
me and talked to me about political prisoners in far-flung nations 
around the world, men and women literally in jail because they are 
exercising their right to speak, to be journalists, to assemble, to run 
for political office.
  My staff said: They are forgotten. Nobody knows they are there. They 
languish in prisons for months and

[[Page S73]]

years and sometimes die there. Nobody even mentions their name. Would 
you consider coming to the floor of the Senate and saying something, 
perhaps writing a letter to the Embassy of the country where they are 
being held prisoner?
  I was skeptical as to whether or not that would even be worth the 
effort, but I have learned over the years it is. I have come to the 
Senate floor to raise the cases of political prisoners around the 
world, typically journalists or activists who found themselves jailed 
for defending basic freedoms we take for granted.
  In some cases, with the help of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, we have seen the release of some of these prisoners. Others 
still languish.
  I bring their pictures to the floor because mentioning their names is 
important, but seeing them tells a story too. Raif Badawi and Waleed 
Abulkhair, in Saudi Arabia, and interim Venezuelan President Guaido's 
chief of staff Roberto Marrero continue to languish unjustly in prison. 
We continue to press for their release.
  I always thought that trying to secure the release of political 
prisoners was worthwhile because it spoke to our values as Americans. I 
have had a chance to meet some of them after they were released.
  It is an amazing feeling after someone has spent years--literally 
years--in prison and comes to my office in the Capitol and breaks down 
in tears in gratitude. It reminds me that they shouldn't be forgotten, 
and neither should many others.
  Unfortunately, this President is too comfortable with these 
autocratic leaders who imprison people around the world. I wish he 
weren't.
  That brings me to the Philippines, one of our key democratic allies 
in Asia. Over the Christmas break, I thought my friends were joking 
with me when they came to me and said: Well, I guess you will not be 
going to the Philippines soon. I didn't know what they were talking 
about.
  It turns out that in my home State, in Illinois, there are many 
Filipino Americans. It is one of the largest immigrant groups coming to 
our country. What an incredible population Filipino Americans are. As I 
have come to know them, they have strong family values and strong 
religious values, and they are hard-working folks. They open these 
little shops and sit in them for 16 hours or 18 hours a day because 
that is the way an immigrating Filipino sets the stage for their son 
and daughter to have a better life.
  Over the holiday recess, the President of the Philippines, President 
Duterte, announced that he was banning Senator Patrick Leahy of 
Vermont, as well as myself and Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts, from 
ever visiting the Philippines. I was kind of shocked to see that. I 
didn't expect that.
  What precipitated this reaction? He also, incidentally, threatened to 
restrict the travel of all Americans to the Philippines. For some time, 
several of us, including Senator Leahy and Senator Markey, have been 
advocating for the release of Filipina Senator Leila de Lima. Senator 
de Lima was a former head of the National Human Rights Commission of 
the Philippines and an internationally recognized human rights champion 
critical of President Duterte's extrajudicial killings.
  What did that lead to? Her arrest and her being sentenced and 
imprisoned for up to 3 years in jail for speaking out against the 
current President of the Philippines.
  Here is a photo of her being taken to court after she was arrested a 
little over 3 years ago.
  Who is behind her release? Not just Senators Leahy, Durbin, and 
Markey and many of our colleagues, but also Amnesty International, the 
Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, and the Raoul Wallenberg Center.
  Let me read an excerpt from the letter she sent me.

       As you can imagine, I may be the one currently in 
     detention, but I am not the only victim suffering in this 
     situation . . . so are the victims of extrajudicial killings 
     and their families, so are all defenders of human rights . . 
     . and ultimately, so are all of us all over the world who 
     defend democracy and rule of law.

  Senator Markey has a resolution calling for Senator de Lima's release 
and an end to the harassment of Filipina journalist Maria Ressa, which 
I am proud to cosponsor and hope will pass the Senate soon.
  Last year, Senator Leahy joined me in an amendment to the State and 
Foreign Operations bill, denying U.S. visas to those involved in 
Senator de Lima's politically motivated incarceration. It was our 
little measure in that appropriations bill that led President Duterte 
to ban us from ever traveling to the Philippines. There is an easy and 
honorable way forward. The Duterte regime should stop threatening the 
travel of Filipino Americans and so many others who travel between our 
nations and, instead, ensure a quick and credible trial for Senator de 
Lima or simply do the right thing and release her.
  In the end, her freedom and the end of government harassment of 
journalists like Maria Ressa will be important tests of whether the 
cherished democratic norms we share with our longstanding Filipino 
allies will be respected by President Duterte.


              United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement

  Mr. President, trade agreements are controversial. They come before 
the Senate and the House infrequently and are usually very hard to 
pass. It takes months and months of work. One of those trade 
agreements, which is known as the USMCA, or the United States-Mexico-
Canada Agreement, or NAFTA 2.0, is one that I have watched carefully. I 
voted for the original NAFTA agreement when I was a Member of the House 
of Representatives. It was not a popular vote among many people in 
Illinois, but I felt that it was the right thing to do. I felt that 
moving the Mexican economy forward, watching it mature, with the 
creation of a middle class, would mean that it would be a more stable 
nation and a nation that would consume many goods produced in the 
United States.
  That happened, but it happened at an expense, too, to be very honest. 
Many companies in the United States saw the low wage rates in Mexico, 
closed their plants in places like Galesburg, IL, and moved operations 
to Mexico. Some moved to China and other places.
  That displacement of jobs was painful. It was hard to explain to 
families that this was a transition that ultimately was for the good of 
all nations involved. If it was your family, you didn't care about the 
good of a nation. You wanted to know if dad had a job.
  The pain we went through over the last 25 years led me into this 
conversation about the USMCA with some skepticism. I didn't want to be 
behind any effort that would ultimately result in more American jobs 
being lost unnecessarily. I am proud to say that this negotiation, 
unlike many things in this town, turned out to be a bipartisan success.
  President Trump presented us with an original version of the USMCA, 
and many of us took exception to some of its contents. I was 
particularly worried about one provision in there relating to the price 
of prescription drugs and some other provisions in the original 
measure. Then, a fulsome negotiation took place. Democrats and 
Republicans sat down. The net result was a positive thing. Just this 
last week, the Senate Finance Committee reported this USMCA by a vote 
of 25 to 3. I believe this bill--this new measure, this new NAFTA--
enjoys broad bipartisan support.
  This morning, I went on a conference call with the agriculture 
leaders of Illinois. I am proud to say we have one of the strongest 
agricultural States in the Nation and some of the best women and men 
who farm our land and produce food and fiber for people to consume all 
across America and around the world. They have gone through some very 
tough times. The President's trade problems with China have hurt us 
especially. Our soybean producers have seen a 93-percent decline in 
their exports of soybeans and soybean products from the State of 
Illinois. They have paid heavily for the decision in this 
administration to cut back on renewable fuels and to issue waivers to 
oil companies so they don't have to blend them in the fuel they sell us 
at gas stations.
  They have seen the decline in the net foreign income, an increase in 
foreign debt, and we have sent aid payments to them, which they 
reluctantly accept as just the only lifeline they have to keep their 
farms in the family.

[[Page S74]]

  They are happy to see that we are moving forward on this new trade 
agreement. A new NAFTA--the USMCA--means the top trading partners of 
the State of Illinois, Mexico and Canada, will have a new lease on a 
relationship that can improve as we increase trade among our nations. 
The three nations will prosper. Our bounty, which we produce in the 
farmlands of Illinois, will be shared with Mexico, Canada, and many 
nations far beyond them. It is a step forward for us.
  I am glad it was done on a bipartisan basis, and I am particularly 
happy to see the overwhelming majority of labor organizations in my 
State of Illinois and in the Nation support the USMCA. It is great to 
have both labor and business and farm communities together in this 
effort.
  It is far from perfect. This is a bill that moves in the right 
direction, and I hope we bring it up for consideration and a vote very 
soon on the floor of the Senate.


                              E-Cigarettes

  Mr. President, for many years, I have had a battle on with the 
tobacco lobby. It is personal. I lost my father to lung cancer when I 
was 14 and he was 53. I watched and stood by his bedside for literally 
100 days as he languished and ultimately died from lung cancer. He 
smoked two packs of cigarettes a day.
  When I came to the U.S. House of Representatives, I was determined to 
try to do something about the deaths that were being caused by tobacco 
products across America. I proposed a measure, which seemed pretty 
modest at the time, that banned smoking on airplane flights. It was an 
inconvenience and a mess to get on a plane with the so-called smoking 
and nonsmoking sections. So I thought: Let's get rid of it once and for 
all.
  It was quite a battle in the House of Representatives. We passed it 
by a handful of votes, to ban smoking on airplanes. Luckily, I found a 
great colleague and friend, former Senator Frank Lautenberg of New 
Jersey, who took up the cause on the floor of the Senate, and we banned 
smoking on airplanes over 25 years ago.
  I didn't know that it was anything more than elimination of an 
inconvenience while people took airplane flights. It turned out to be 
much more. It turned out to be a tipping point. People across America 
said: If it is unhealthy to breathe in second-hand smoke on an 
airplane, how about trains? How about buses? How about offices? How 
about hospitals? How about restaurants?
  At the end of the day, we know what happened. If someone walked into 
your home or your place of business and lit up a cigarette, you would 
look at them and think: Where are you from? We don't do that anymore.
  We certainly don't do it without asking permission. But that is what 
has happened in America.
  We had to fight the tobacco lobby every step of the way, and we have 
had some success. The number of young people who were using tobacco 
cigarette products declined dramatically, from over 20 percent to 
around 8 percent. We were winning the battle because these tobacco 
companies were recruiting our kids at an early age with a nicotine 
addiction they couldn't shake later in life.
  Guess what happened. The tobacco companies invented a new product 
that is called e-cigarette, or vaping. If you think I am making this 
connection up, take a look at the largest vendor of vaping devices, 
JUUL, and look at the major shareholder of JUUL. It turns out to be 
Altria, which also turns out to be a major tobacco company.
  Now the tobacco companies have decided that since kids don't 
gravitate toward tobacco cigarettes, they will give them an 
alternative. The alternative is an e-cigarette, or a vaping device.
  You know what has happened, Mr. President, in your State and in my 
mine? High school kids are taking up this vaping addiction in numbers 
unimaginable. The latest report suggests that almost 29 percent of high 
school students across the United States are currently vaping. What 
they are doing is using pods and flavor pods with nicotine included and 
using an electronic device to inhale this vapor and blow it out. 
Unfortunately, in inhaling it into their lungs, they are also inhaling 
nicotine and developing a terrible addiction.
  Students from New York came to my office a few weeks ago, and they 
said: Senator, don't kid yourself. It is not 28 or 29 percent. It is 
over 50 percent of students who are vaping today, and they are 
desperate to buy these flavor pods and to buy these new JUUL devices. 
When the teacher in a classroom steps out, they are all vaping, right 
there in the classroom. They do it in the restrooms and the classrooms 
and the cafeterias and outside the schools. They are doing desperate 
things to be able to afford these devices.
  On September 11 of this year, President Trump and the First Lady held 
a press conference in the Oval Office. Though I have been critical of 
this President for many things, I applauded what they said. They 
recognized this vaping crisis, and they said that we are going to stop 
it and that we are going to make the moves necessary to make sure that 
these flavor pods that are enticing children are finally taken from the 
market.
  I couldn't believe my ears when I heard it. Here was President Trump 
stepping up to do the right thing. Perhaps he and his wife, as a father 
and a mother of a teenager, understand this better than some. But 
whatever the reason, whatever the motivation, they came forward with 
what I thought was the best proposal: End the flavor pods once and for 
all.
  After they made their announcements, the vaping industry went to 
work. They started buying ads on FOX--naturally, that is where the 
President watches television--and they started saying to the people 
that it was unfair to take away these flavor pods.
  Sadly, these flavor pods, when you look at them very closely, are 
just an enticement for young people to use this product.
  Now the vaping industry tries to argue: Well, wait a minute. People 
who want tobacco cigarettes ought to have vaping as an alternative. It 
is safer.
  Well, marginally it may be, if that were the end of the story. But it 
turns out that vaping device is also becoming an enticement for young 
people to use flavor pods and to develop this addiction to nicotine of 
vaping devices. It is impossible to argue that some veteran smoker of 
tobacco products is going to be enticed to vaping if he can buy candy 
flavors, bubble gum flavors, fruit flavors, or other flavors. Can you 
imagine some 50-year-old who has been smoking Marlboro for years, and 
says: Man, if I could just get my hands on some Unicorn milk flavor 
pods, I would give up tobacco and move to e-cigarettes.
  We know better. These pods are designed to entice children.
  (Mr. ROMNEY assumed the chair.)
  We waited to see what would happen after the President's September 
announcement. We were lucky to have one of our own colleagues, from the 
State of Utah, who has now taken the Chair, who was present at the 
meeting with the President on the issue of vaping. I salute him for his 
friendship and leadership on this issue.
  Last week, after delays, President Trump finally announced a plan to 
ban some of the e-cigarette flavors that are hooking our kids on 
nicotine. Within 30 days, some flavored e-cigarette pods and cartridges 
will be removed from the market. This is an important step, but it is 
not nearly enough. For instance, menthol pods are exempt, so I am 
afraid kids are just going to move to JUUL's menthol flavor. Further, 
liquid e-cigarette flavors that are used in open-tank vaping shops are 
also exempt. The vaping shops are still in business, unaffected by this 
new policy of the administration. Liquid nicotine is sold in flavors 
like Gummy Bear, Whip Cream, Sugar Cookie, and Unicorn Milk. These 
flavors, definitely intended for kids, will stay under President 
Trump's new policy.
  This week's announcement is not what the President said would happen 
in the Oval Office a few months ago. That is why the public health 
community and this Senator are so disappointed. We know the President 
decided to water down the e-cigarette flavor ban. Heavy lobbying by Big 
Tobacco and Big Vape were behind it. When announcing this new 
restriction, President Trump said some words that may tell the story. 
He said:
  We have to protect our families. At the same time, it's a big 
industry. We want to protect the industry.
  Protect the vaping industry? It makes sense why these companies

[[Page S75]]

wanted the President to backtrack on his promise. They make a lot of 
money off our kids. They addict them, and the kids spend money because 
of the addiction. Why doesn't it make sense for the President to stand 
up to Big Tobacco and Big Vaping on behalf of our kids across America?
  The fight is not over. Fewer than 4 percent of adults use e-
cigarettes, while 30 percent, at least, of high school kids across 
America are using them. Now the FDA--with a new leader, Dr. Stephen 
Hahn--has to come off the sidelines and do their job to protect the 
kids. By court order, all e-cigarette companies will have to submit 
applications to the Food and Drug Administration in May if they want to 
keep their devices and flavors on the market. If they do not submit an 
application in May, they will have to come off the market immediately. 
The FDA must enforce this fully. For companies that do submit an 
application, the FDA has up to 1 year to decide whether they stay in 
the market. The FDA must reject the applications of any vaping products 
that are clearly designed to appeal to children, period. And if they 
are significantly used by children, they should be taken off the 
market.
  I have told Commissioner Hahn that the FDA must evaluate these 
applications based on science, not anecdotes. What matters is that e-
cigarette companies prove their health claims, which, to date, they 
have never been able to do. Do e-cigarettes actually help smokers quit 
cigarettes? Are they actually safe? Or are they, in fact, hooking 
children on nicotine? Those are the important questions that should be 
answered with science, not with politics.
  There are ways to preserve e-cigarette access for adult smokers 
without allowing an entire generation of kids to be hooked on nicotine. 
This means getting rid of all of the flavors, taking illegal products 
off the market immediately, and rejecting e-cigarette applications that 
fail to show a strong public health benefit.
  To date, the FDA has not been as active or aggressive as it should. 
For the sake of our children and the families who love them, it is time 
for the FDA to get off the sidelines and make sure that we do 
everything in our power, including in Congress, to make certain that 
this epidemic--and the FDA came up with the word--this epidemic of e-
vaping and e-cigarettes comes to an end in America.
  I yield the floor.
  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.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Nomination of Eleni Maria Roumel

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, for 3 years now, I have been hard at 
work alongside an administration that prioritizes filling vacancies on 
the Federal bench with smart, dedicated, constitutionalist judges. When 
I am at home in Tennessee, that is what people tell me they want to 
see--constitutionalist judges, not activist judges.
  I know that I have sounded like a broken record in my reiterating 
just how important it is to keep these judicial nominations moving 
through the Committee on the Judiciary and moving to the floor, but I 
will tell you this: I think it is a message that needs to be repeated 
day in and day out because the American people and, as I said, 
Tennesseans know that this should be a priority, for this is how we 
continue to protect freedoms from generation to generation.
  Since 2017, we have confirmed over 180 nominees, and even in the face 
of partisan bickering, we have no plans at all to slow that pace. We 
were in the Committee on the Judiciary today, hearing again from the 
nominees whom we will move forward and bring to this floor for 
confirmation. I want to shine light on a court that doesn't get a whole 
lot of attention, but let me tell you that we would be in real trouble 
if we did not have this one.
  I have come to the floor to support President Trump's latest nominee 
to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims--Eleni Maria Roumel.
  I first met Eleni when she joined the nonpartisan Office of General 
Counsel for the House of Representatives. During her 6-year tenure, 
Eleni advised those of us who were members of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee as we faced some challenging and high-profile legal matters 
and as we looked at laws that were going to affect the American people 
and how they lived their lives every single day.
  The Energy and Commerce Committee in the House has wide jurisdiction. 
Of course, energy policy, commerce and trade, healthcare, 
manufacturing, pro sports, privacy, and the internet all come under 
that jurisdiction. So Eleni served us well in providing advice. I 
witnessed her commitment to bipartisanship as she served both sides of 
the aisle with the same quality of representation. She did it all while 
she was pregnant with her son, John, who is now 2 years old, and as 
someone who has been a working mom, I know the challenges that this 
presents.
  From her time as a truly excellent student at Tulane Law, to her work 
in the private sector and beyond, Eleni's professionalism has elevated 
her above the rest of the pack.
  She practiced intellectual property law and earned a promotion to 
partner as she represented both pro bono clients and publicly traded 
Fortune 500 companies.
  She taught and mentored students as an adjunct professor at 
Charleston Law School.
  She solidified her reputation as a lawyer committed to the rule of 
law in her work handling government oversight of Federal agencies. 
These cases were vital to the safeguarding of the separation of powers 
and emphasized the supremacy of the Constitution as what it is--the law 
of the land.
  In her 19-year career, she has appeared before 20 different Federal 
courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, and just last year, she was 
elevated to the role of Deputy Counsel to Vice President Mike Pence.
  I am truly honored to have supported Eleni Roumel's nomination to the 
Court of Federal Claims. She will be an excellent role model on the 
bench, especially to young women in the legal profession. I encourage 
my colleagues to take a look at her resume, get to know her, and then 
join me in wholeheartedly supporting her confirmation.
  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.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________