situation and their communities. it's important whenever we look at where we're going. >> oh, i was-- that type of leadership is really, really important i appreciate where you're going and what you're want to see happens. and what we have, and plus the $50 million is a great step forward. >> thank you very much. miss jackson lee. you're recognized for four minutes. >> thank you for the witnesses, for your presence here today. i could spend time longer than we've had the opportunity and forgive me for stepping out, we're overlapping meetings, but i wanted to get here and say thank you. i want to run quickly through the questions. >> we're going to leave this last portion of this program on gun violence. a reminder, you can watch all of our programs on-line at c-span.org. the senate is about to gavel in. lawmakers continue to work on executive nominations today. yesterday majority leader

mcconnell filed cloture on brian mcguire's nomination to be deputy undersecretary of the treasury. we expect a vote on his nomination today. the senate live here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. savior of humanity, your unfailing love sustains us. stagger freedom's enemies and bring them to their knees. use our lawmakers so effectively that our citizens may rejoice

because of your mercy. be for our nation a towering rock of safety, a shelter in the time of storm. lord, we wait quietly before you, so use your strong arms to bring us your peace. we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. grassley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: could i address the senate for one minute? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: the latest political ploy by the democrats is to paint the senate majority leader as an obstructionist because he hasn't moved to consider certain bills passed by the other body. well, let's think about that just for a minute. they can hardly use that talking point anymore. yesterday the senate majority leader moved to take up the house-passed appropriation package, and the senate democrats blocked that motion. the senate isn't obliged to

consider every partisan bill from the house or the senate doesn't -- or the house doesn't have to consider every bill passed by the senate -- or if i said that wrong. the house doesn't have to pass every bill that's passed by the senate. but if there's any house bills, the senate has a responsibility to take up, to debate, and to amend, it is the spending bills to keep government operating. we've got to fund the government, and that's what we're doing. so i hope we don't hear any of this bellyaching anymore when we take up the house bill. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i want to thank the senior senator from iowa for his observations this morning. that is exactly where we find

ourselves. what happened on the floor yesterday afternoon. senate democrats blocked this year's funding for national defense, they voted it down. we can't move the legislation forward. they blocked the funding to keep pace with russia and china. democrats blocked money for the tools an training that our men and women in uniform badly need while our adversaries pour money into technology. democrats voted against a pay raise for our service members. all but two democrats voted to filibuster all of this, kept the senate from even considering the legislation. never mind that before we adjourned in august, democrats in the house and senate all agreed to a carefully negotiated framework to keep our appropriations process on track. in fact, the speaker of the house and the democratic leader in the senate publicly agreed to the exact dollar figure for the

defense bill they just voted down yesterday. they publicly agreed to the number in the defense bill they just voted down yesterday. and we all agreed in the agreement that poison pill riders or any changes to presidential transfer authorities were off the table unless both sides were on board. so the appropriations process, including at the committee level with chairman shelby and ranking member leahy, appeared to be going pretty smoothly. but then, as we've seen a number of other times in the recent past, the democratic leadership seemed to have a change of heart. perhaps it sunk in that actually meeting president trump and republicans halfway has

divided -- as government obviously requires might have earned some criticism from the far left. but whatever the reason, our democratic friends turned on a dime, reneged on the bipartisan agreement and began demanding the kind of poison pills and partisan policy changes that we all agreed not to do. so that's how we get to a spectacle like what happened yesterday, madam president. that's how we get to a place where 42 senate democrats vote to filibuster defense funding and obstruct a pay raise for our service members for all the world to see. because democratic leadership decided they saw more political upside in picking new fights with the president than keeping their word and investing in our men and women in uniform. in fact, i understand that just yesterday our democratic colleagues were offered even

more money for the labor h.h.s. bill, but they declined tvment so it's not about the money, madam president, it's not about compromising and getting to yes. it's about not wanting to take yes for an answer. i have great respect for my democratic friends, but i think this episode has to go down as a new high-watermark for the policy consequences of what some people call trump derangement syndrome. we're at a point where 42 senate democrats will decline to fund the u.s. armed forces just to spite the occupant of the white house. if you ask me, that is one heck of a price to pay to put on a show for the resistance. but yesterday's vote is now a matter of record. it's in the past and i am really hopeful that we can get on track with the kind of democratic

process that my colleagues already pledged to support. when the good work that takes place in committee is allowed to proceed without this top-down partisan maneuvering, it tends to yield pretty good results. i think we were all pleased with the bipartisan funding bill that chairman shelby and ranking member leahy produced last year and i understand that this markup is expected to be bipartisan as well. for example, i'm proud the financial services and the general government bill included a bipartisan amendment providing another $250 million from the administration and of elections to help states improve their defenses and shore up their voting systems. i'm proud to have helped develop this amendment and cosponsor it in committee. that will bring our total allocation for election security, listen to this, to

more than $600 million since fiscal 2008. the trump administration has made enormous strides to help states secure their elections without giving washington new power to push the states around. that's how we continued the progress we saw in 2018, and that's exactly what we're doing. this is exactly the kind of positive outcome that is possible when we stop posturing for the press and let chairman shelby and senator leahy conduct a bipartisan committee process. as time grows shorter before the end of december, i hope the critical defense funding that democrats blocked yesterday will soon earn the same kind of productive treatment. because i don't think the american people will have much patience for the notion that democrats' first responsibility is irritating the white house and funding the department of defense comes second.

i hope we can reboot this process and move forward for the sake of our senate process and for the sake of funding for the federal government, and for the ache of our nation's security. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of the treasury, brian mcgwire, of new york, to be deputy to the under secretary. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. thune: madam president? the. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. thune: mr. president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: it is.

mr. thune: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, last week the senate confirmed president trump's 150th judge. that's a milestone. again, and again, democrats have used the time-consuming cloture vote process to delay confirmation of president trump's nomination. even nominees that they ultimately chose to vote for. by this point in president obama's first term, republicans had required cloture votes on just three of president obama's judicial nominees -- three. compare that to today. as of september the 12th, democrats had required cloture votes on a staggering 71.7% of president trump's picks for the bench. 71%. basically two out of every three -- more than two out of every three judges, madam president, the democrats are requiring

cloture votes. and by that, it simply means they're filibustering that particular nominee. the way that you end a filibuster is you have to invoke cloture. when republicans were in the minority, when president obama was in the white house, at this point in president obama's first term, we had -- or the democrat at that time majority had to invoke cloture just three times for three judges that republicans had tried to block. but as i said, right now same point in president trump's first term we're talking about almost 72% of every judge -- all the nominations combined have been filibustered. so if you think about that and you add it up totally cumulatively, it's about 100. as i said, madam president, many of these are nominees that democrats went on ultimately to confirm. in other words, it's not that president trump has nominated scores of extreme nominees whom

democrats felt they couldn't support. again and again, democrats have delayed a nominee, then turned around and voted in favor of him or her. in one particularly memorable example, in january of 2018 democrats forced the senate to spend more than a week considering four district court judges, even though not one single democrat voted against their confirmation. not one single democrat. these judges could have been confirmed in a matter of minutes by voice votes. instead, democrats forced the senate to spend more than a week on their consideration, time that could have been spent on genuinely controversial nominees or on some of the many important issues that are facing our country. this september the senate has confirmed six district court judges. democrats forced cloture votes on four of them. despite the fact that all four were eventually confirmed by

huge bipartisan margins. in fact, one was confirmed by a unanimous vote of 94-0. now, madam president, if democrats had a serious reason for their obstruction of the president's judicial nominees, they would not be repeatedly turning around and voting for them. their obstruction isn't based on principle. it's based on partisanship. they don't like this president, so they're obstructing his nominees, even when they agree that they're well-qualified that are their positions. as a result, we're forced to spend hours upon hours of senate floor time on uncontroversial nominations, time we could be using for other priorities. democrat delays are not representing the judicial vacancy rate, which is still high, despite republican efforts to get judges confirmed. high numbers of vacancies result in long waits to get cases heard, which serves nobody. madam president, while

democratic obstruction is bad enough, unfortunately we've had a lot more to worry about. in recent months, democrats have moved beyond obstruction and into directly threatening the independence of the judiciary. court packing, an idea which pretty much everybody thought had been consigned to the dustbin of history almost a century ago, is enjoying a revival among members of the democrat party. for anyone who needs a refresher, the theory of court pack something quite simple. if the supreme court is not deciding cases to your liking, add more judges to the court until you start getting the decisions that you want. it's not hard to see why this is a terrible idea. but that hang stopped it from gaining -- but that hasn't stopped it from gaining traction in the democratic party. the second ranking democrat in the senate recently filed an

amicus brief in the supreme court threatening the court if it failed to rule according to democrats' preference p much the supreme court is not well, they said, and the people know it. perhaps the court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics, end quote. translation -- if you don't rule the way that we want you to, you won't like the consequences. madam president, threatening members of the judiciary is the domain of dictators and despots, not members of the united states congress. and it is deeply disturbing that prominent democrats now apparently see nothing wrong with trying to intimidate the supreme court. but unfortunately it's becoming apparent that there are few leapts to which democrats will not go in their increasingly desperate partisanship. just this week we saw democrats

leap on the opportunity to drag justice kavanaugh's name through the mud yet again, based on yet another vague and unsubstantiated rumor. more than one democrat presidential candidate instantly cried that he should be impeached. what was their basis for such a drastic suggestion? a "new york times" article that was, as the leader pointed out, so short on reporting that it ran on the opinion page of "the new york times" instead of in the news section. not to mention that after running this piece, the "times" quickly had to issue a correction, noting a glaring omission in the original story. what was the omission? the fact that the supposed victim of justice kavanaugh's supposed behavior declined to be interviewed and that her friend said she had no memory of the alleged incident. it's not hard to see what's

behind democrats' relentless campaign to smear justice kavanaugh's name. they are furious that it was a republican, not a democrat president, who got the opportunity to choose a justice to replace a perceived swing vote on the supreme court. and they're afraid that justice kavanaugh won't issue the rulings that they want. and here we get to the heart of the problem with democrats' increasingly unhinged left youism and attacks on the judiciary. democrats aren't looking for a judiciary that will rule according to the law. they're looking for a judiciary that will rule in accordance with democrats' preferred policies, whether they have anything to do with the law or not. and that, madam president, is a very dangerous goal. sure, it might seem nice when an activist judge who shares your

opinions reaches outside of the meaning of the statutes and rules for your preferred outcome. but what happens when that same judge reaches beyond the law to your detriment? what protection do you have if the judge -- and not the law -- becomes the highest authority? the only way to ensure the protection of individual rights is to ensure the rule of law. and that means having judges who will make decisions according to the law, not according to their personal preferences or the principles of a particular political party. in the wake of democrats' threat to the supreme court, all 53 republican senators cent letter to the justices -- sent a letter to the justices underscoring our commitment to protecting the independence of the judiciary. as we noted in the letter, and i quote from it, there is no greater example of the genius of our constitution than it's creation of an independent judiciary. at the same time and again, our

independent federal courts have protected the constitutional rights of americans from government overreach even when that overreach was politically popular, end quote. madam president, if we want our courts to continue protecting americans' constitutional rights, then we need to ensure that they remain independent. democrats' interests in having judges who will rule according to their preferred outcomes is not new, but in the past their interest has not led them to attempt to bully judges into voting their way. i hope, madam president, democrats will think better of their repressive tactics before our independent judiciary becomes the victim of their political agenda. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois.

ms. duckworth: madam president, i could say -- i could stay here all day listening to the names of the braver than brave men and women who i was lucky enough to serve with in the military. i could stay here all night telling stories about their heroism and courage. i could stay here all week, all month talking about the troops serving overseas right now, about those who are on their eighth or ninth tours of duty, or about those teenagers that weren't even alive when the twin towers fell but yet are ready to ship off right now if that's what's asked of them. i still would not be able to convey the sacrifices they are making because they love this country and would do anything to defend her. i will not stand idly by and let a single one of them shed blood in an avoidable conflict because donald trump has abdicated matters of war and peace to a despot who regularly flouts human rights and openly murders

journalists. and yet after tensions spiked between saudi arabia and iran this past weekend, that's exactly what he seemed willing to do, tweeting that the u.s. was locked and loaded, just waiting for the crown prince to tell him how to proceed. we can't let that slip by. the president, the commander in chief of the greatest military, of the greatest democracy on the face of the earth just suggested that he was outsourcing the powers of war to a foreign monarch, powers that aren't even his to hand over, and he did it in a tweet. but while trump may have never read the constitution, i have. so let me direct his attention to article 1, which makes it clear that the president does not have the authority to declare war. only congress has that power. we are the ones tasked with deciding when and how americans are sent into combat. we are the ones charged with

that most solemn duty. not donald trump. and certainly not mohammad bin salman. yet trump is acting as though article 1 simply doesn't exhibition as though he could usurp the power from the legislative branch and trade it to whomever pleases, as if betraying the constitution is optional. this should not be a partisan issue. no matter if you're struggling to pay rent or your name is plastered in gold on the front of a building on fifth avenue, no one can overrule the constitution. trump doesn't get to mire us in yet another middle east conflict just because he has a bizarre tendency to bow down and kiss up to the world's coolest tyrants. whether you ask a constitutional scholar or a high school student taking u.s. history classes, they'll it will you the same thing -- that on matters of

military force, american presidents do not get to colludes to take orders from -- choose to take orders from foreign adversaries. they table their directions from congress, full stop. and i'm here today to say that we have not authorized him to ensnare us in another endless, senseless war. we haven't passed a new authorization for a new military force in more than 15 years and there's just no way that the aumf going after the perpetrators of 9/11 request perpetrate actions against iran nearly two decades later. sending troops overseas who may not have been alive when that bill was voted on. but, listen, it's not just me who bleefts this -- believes this. it's not just the democrats in the senate. during the hearing for mark esper, i asked trump's nominee

whether the fisting aumf gives this administration the right to conduct a war with iran. and his answer. well his answer was no, no, they do not. even in decades past when prior presidents have gotten us tangled in bad wars based on bad intelligence, at least they loopped in the united -- loopped in the united nations. trump is too busy trumping his chests and catering to the whims of autocrats. he will not even consider minimum diplomacy, too distracted to beat the drums of war to think about the troops he will be sending into harm's way. for what? to protect the saudi oil industry or the crowned prince's personal profits? once again the trump foreign policy doctrine has proven reckless, senseless and

dangerous. a doctrine in which fact and fiction are one and the same. it's shameful. it's terrifying that we have a commander in chief who comes to military decisions by virtue of temper tantrum and announces them via tweet. a president who doesn't seem to care that if he keeps on the path of fire and fury that he's been treading our own homeland will be in greater danger. more wounded warriors will be sent to walter reed and more fallen heroes will be laid to rest in the hallowed grounds of arlington. donald trump may never have deigned to put on our uniform, so he doesn't know the commander's greatest responsibility is to safeguard the troops so they are able to carry out the mission. that means that we do not send them into harm's way recklessly and without full support logistically and legally. as a former unit commander, i

ran for congress so when the drums of war sounded i would be in a position to make sure that our elected officials truly consider the full cost of war, not just in dollars and sense, but in the sacrifices of our troops and their families. that was a vow i made to my bud -- my buddies that i deployed with and all those i served since i hung up my uniform. now, as the drums of war are pounding once again, i'm here today to keep my promise to do our troops justice and to make sure that donald trump does not outsource overseas yet another american job -- congress's job to declare war. so if the trump administration wants to go to war, they must bring their case to congress and give the american people a say through their elected representatives. they must respect our service members enough to prove why war with iran is worth turning to and turning more moms and dads into gold star parents.

and they must testify about what the end state in iran actually looks like. then, when their case has been made, when congress's debate is done, we should vote. it's our duty. it's the least we owe to the troops we'd be sending into harm's way. you know, if the vote to authorize military force passes, then i will be the first person to volunteer to deploy. i'm ready to dust off my uniform, i'm ready to fly hblghts, take on the -- helicopters, take on whatever it takes to uphold the oath that all veterans have sworn, to protect and defend this nation we love no matter what. it would be nice if we had a president willing to do the same instead of one who thinks he looks tough pushing us to the brink of a needless conflict. trump may think he comes off as strong by using phrases like lock and loaded and by spewing

threats 280 characters at a time, but he has never seen weaker to me. a true leader would not bend to the whims of despots because of the size of their bank accounts. a strong president would not care more about keeping tyrants happy than sawrding our most -- safeguarding our most precious resource, the men and women willing to lay down their lives to defend our nation. yet, day after day, donald trump wraps himself in the flag in the morning, and then abandons our service members and the democratic norms by the afternoon. while he may have shirked his duty as an elected official. i will not abandon mine. i will keep coming back to the chamber and keep raising my voice under this great capitol dome and keep what is actually in our nation's best interests. i don't take my orders from war

criminals or dictators or princes or monarchs. i don't serve foreign regimes. i serve the american people. trump would do well to try that sometime. and, with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president,

yesterday the senate failed -- yesterday the senate failed to advance a motion to proceed to a package of appropriations bills, demonstrating something that leader mcconnell already knew, there are not enough votes in the senate for the president's wall. the senate refuses to fund a border wall that president -- that the president promised mexico would pay for, especially not at the expense of our troops and their families and important public health programs like child care and head start. just yesterday the pentagon warned of dire outcomes if the money to fund the military is not provided. read today's "washington post", our military people are upset with this. now, their chair of command, they are not going to publicly say it, pu we -- but we know it. over 120 military projects stand to lose funding and we're not talking about fixing parking lots, we're talking about military readiness, medical facilities for troops in north carolina, we're talking about schools for military families in

kentucky, we're talking about explosives stored in unsafe conditions, we're talking about very important engineering lab at west point to train our future soldiers. even hurricane recovery projects in florida are at risk. the defense department was very clear, without this funding lives would be at risk. but that's what republicans on the appropriations committee proposed. the senate rightly rejected that idea. the republican leader is saying we're hurting the military. give me a break. we are defending the military. how -- how much bull does the majority leader think the american public will swallow? they are taking money out of the military to put it in the wall, and he says that we are hurting the military. oh, no. leader mcconnell, you are hurting the military and we defended them. we defended them because we want

the money to go to the military, not to the wall. and, by the way, in that regard leader mcconnell did not stick with the agreement. the agreement was not only on the 302a's but there would be bipartisan agreement on where the money, on the defense and nondefense side, would be distributed. instead of consulting democrats, they decided to jam something down our throats taking money out of defense, out of head start and other programs in the health and human services budget and put it into the wall. well, that wasn't going to stand, it isn't going to stand and it will not stand. leader mcconnell, i hope you learned your lesson. shutting down the government or trying to eyeball for the wall isn't going to work. let's roll up our sleeves and work together. my friend, the republican leader, and chairman shelby have now shown the president that

they tried again to fund this wall. they've seen once again that the votes are not there. they have seen once again that when the senate republicans do the president's bidding and refuse to engage in democrats, the only thing they accomplish is wasted time. the pattern reebts itself -- repeats itself far too frequently. they are so afraid of this president, and that's what led to the 35-day trump shutdown earlier this year. let's not repeat that, republicans. let's learn our lessons. the same impulse led republicans to deny from -- for months disaster aid to puerto rico. but in each case whether it be taking money out of needed places like the military and put it into the wall, we're not being fair to puerto rico when it came to aid they had to relent and work with democrats. glad they did for the good of the country. so enough time has been wasted

this work period. leader mcconnell, chairman shelby, let's sit down -- it's time for you to sit down and negotiate with democrats on the way forward. now, there's another bright spot -- well, let's talk about the c.r., the short-term c.r. that was released last night, the continuing resolution is an important measure to keep the government open until november and allow appropriators to get a bipartisan agreement until fiscal year 2020. one program that has not received enough attention is the agricultural relief program, known commonly as the commodity credit corporation. this is an important program that should help all farmers suffering from certain exij sis in the market like price declines, natural disasters. unfortunately, over the past year, the president turned this important agricultural relief program that we all support into a giant slush fund. the relief payments have gotten

political. crops in red states have received outside subsidies while crops in blue states were shortchanged. cotton, for example, has gotten a huge subsidy compared to dairy and specialty crops, fruits and vegetables. the payments were not matched to the damage caused to each crop. even soybeans, the supposed reason for this, at the beginning was greatly shortchanged for cotton, and even now cotton is being treated better. in addition, and just as bad if not worse, there has been a huge amount of waste and abuse in the program. large agribusinesses, including some foreign agribusinesses like a brazilian beef corporation are receiving funding through this program while american dairy farmers are passed over. there are limits on the c.c.c. program. if you make over $900,000, you get up to -- if you make over $900,000, you shouldn't get any money. the most any farm can get is

$250,000, if there are two farmers in the family, a husband and a wife. those don't seem to abate either. so we're very pleased that republicans acceded to our wish. democrats were able to inject some transparency into the agricultural relief program. in this short-term c.r., we require reporting on whether the funding is going to foreign sources, and justification for why money went where it did. we're going to look at this report before we move to the full appropriations bill in a month or two to make sure the money is going to our american farmers who need it, not foreigners, not wealthy agribusiness, not all slanted to one product like cotton when there are so many other needs. this is a good victory for democrats in a day of some victories for democrats. another bright spot. election security. this morning, after months and

months and months of republican resistance and months of insistent democratic pressure, senate republicans have finally agreed to support our democratic requests for additional election security funding in advance of the 2020 elections. this is similar to an amendment democrats offered during last year's appropriation process to help states harden their election infrastructure to protect against russian or chinese or iranian interference. a year ago, our republican friends unfortunately and shortsightedly rejected this amendment. well, maybe, just maybe republicans are starting to come around to our view. election security is necessary. that if americans don't believe their elections are on the up and up, woe is us as a country, as a democracy. it's not all the money we have requested and doesn't include a single solitary reform that virtually everyone knows we

need, but it's a start. leader mcconnell kept saying we don't need the money. i made umpteen speeches at this chair. the republican leader denied the need. but now thank god he has seen the light. we need more money for election security. ask election officials, democrat or republican, throughout the country. so i hope today's vote means that senate republicans are beginning to see the light on election security. while this funding is important, it's not the only thing we need to do to secure our elections from russian, chinese, iranian, or any other foreign country interfering. there are multiple bipartisan pieces of legislation awaiting action on the floor that would counter foreign influence operations against our democracy, safeguard our elections and deter foreign adversaries from even attempting to interfere. we have been warned time and time again by our national security leaders, nearly all of

them republicans appointed by president trump that china and of course russia are potential threats in 2020. we cannot sit on our hands while our adversaries try to replicate and outdo what putin accomplished in 2016. leader mcconnell should bring the bipartisan bills. we're getting the money in approps, but we need more legislation to refine where the dollars go. so leader mcconnell, now that you have seen the light on the money, go one step further. bring the bipartisan bills, the defending election american security from kremlin aggression act, the secure elections act, and the deter act to the floor for a debate and a vote. otherwise, the job will remain incomplete and our democracy vulnerable. finally, on guns. yesterday, according to reports, attorney general barr came to capitol hill to discuss a one-page proposal on gun legislation that he had put

together. it became clear soon after that the white house seemingly out of fear of reprisal by the n.r.a. was unwilling to embrace its own attorney general's proposal, and once again the white house refused to take a stand on what they proposed to do on the question of gun violence. president trump and senate republicans are trying to find a way to have their cake and eat it, too. searching for a plan that the public will accept and won't offend the n.r.a. it's a fool's errand. leader mcconnell, president trump, you can't please the n.r.a. and at the same time do good gun legislation that will save lives. you cannot please the n.r.a. unless you do something that is either regressive or at the very best toothless. get it through your heads, that's how it is. so if you want to do something real on gun legislation and save lives, you have to reject the n.r.a.'s minute registrations.

the n.r.a. is widely out of step with the american public. its leadership is recalcitrant and divided. look no further than the universal background check bill. 93% of americans and the great majority of gun owners, 80% of republicans support the idea, but not the n.r.a. as for yesterday's plan floated by the republican attorney general, a plan that would only modestly expand background checks, representatives of the n.r.a. called it a nonstarter. the views of the n.r.a. and the views of the american public are fundamentally incompatible. president trump, leader mcconnell, senate republicans, which side are you on? are you with the n.r.a. or are you with the american people? i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. # -- plan to try to lower out of pocket costs for prescription drugs. this, of course, has been a priority for many of us in washington, including the presiding officer, and we've been working on it really hard in the senate. three standing committees in the senate have now reported out legislation dealing with this issue. the judiciary committee, the finance committee, and the help committees -- the -- help

committee trying to come up with bipartisan packages to lower prescription drug costs. these bills, of course, include ideas from republicans and democrats, and while it's -- mr. president, apparently we had some technical difficulties here, but it sounds like we fixed that. thank you. so, as i was saying, while these bills include ideas from both republicans and democrats, it shouldn't surprise people that in an area as complex as this, there are going to be some disagreements along the way, but that's what we do here, we work through those disagreements and try to build consensus. and i know that it's only a bipartisan bill that has any chance at all to make its way to the president's desk for his signature. well, speaker pelosi appears to have a different approach.

house democrats want to replace our free market health care system with the heavy-handed government approach that puts us on a path to socialized medicine. they want to allow the government to set prices and put bureaucrats at the center of our health care system instead of patients. the speaker's plan is the latest example of a partisan messaging document masquerading as legislation, and it has absolutely no chance, zero, zip, nada, no chance of passing the senate or becoming law. in contrast, the ideas we've been working on would lower out of pocket costs by increasing competition and transparency while stopping the bad actors who tried to -- try to game the system. mr. cornyn: unlike the house we've been considering bills that have broad bipartisan support, as i said, which means

they have the potential to actually become law to get something done. speaker pelosi should take note, we in the senate have done the hard work of finding consensus with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. so i would encourage our friends in the house of representatives to stop wasting time and instead start working in a bipartisan fashion to work on legislation that can actually become law because only then will the american people see the benefit of a reduction in out of pocket costs for their prescription drugs. mr. president, on another matter, with the end of the fiscal year just a week and a half away we know the clock is running out to pass funding bills. after the longest government shutdown in history earlier this year, i thought there was bipartisan support to get back to the regular appropriations process to get that back on

track. both parties knew there was a funding crisis at take this fall if we couldn't come together an reach a compromise, so that's exactly what we did before the august break. my colleagues on -- our colleagues on the appropriations committee, led by the chairman, senator shelby, worked day and night to reach an agreement that was acceptable to both parties in both chambers as well as earning the support of the president. now that's not easy to do. that was a two-year budget caps agreement. but they got it done. well, that's until the august recess occurred and apparently memories faded about what had been agreed to or people reconsidered their previous agreement and decided to withdraw their consent so we -- but we knew this caps deal, as imperfect as it was, would lay the foundation for the

appropriations process this fall and get us out of this reoccurring movie called the looming shutdown. at the end of july we passed the two-year budget agreement and it was a fair compromise considering everybody's interest. while there was still details to be hashed out and individual appropriations bills, it was a strong start. we thought we had made it past this shutdown movie and scenario. we agreed to topline defense spending and nondefense spending, there was a promise not to derail the appropriations process with poison pill policy riders and we got it done with plenty of time to spare. but now it appears our democratic friends are backing down on their commitments, which is a serious mistake on their part. i mean, if we can't work together in good faith and trust

that our colleagues will actually stick to their word and keep their commitments, then that's going to do nothing than further erode our ability to function on behalf of the american people. so imagine my surprise when yesterday the senate voted to begin debate on the first patch of funding bills and democrats blocked it. they stopped it dead in its traction even though -- tracks even though they agreed to the spending caps and a process to go forward, they blocked it. they voted to deny our troops the largest pay raise in a decade. they voted to with hold vital funding from our military at a time when we face growing threats around the world. and they voted to derail the very process that they had agreed -- agreed to before august, and in so doing they, once again, put partisan politics above our responsibilities to the american

people. and what's the reason for this? a disagreement over funding allocations of .003% of the total budget. .003% of the total budget. that's like robbing the bank to steal from the gum ball machine. i'm really disappointed. we are better than that, and i hope our colleagues will reconsider. our national security is on the line. if there's one thing we ought to do above all else is to provide for the common defense and to make sure that the american people are safe and that those who put themselves in harm's way, who volunteer to wear the uniform of the united states military are treated with respect and fairness, and it's inappropriate -- it's just wrong to play games with these -- with

national security or with our military, as our democratic colleagues appear to be doing. and finally, mr. president, four months ago the senate passed a bipartisan bill that i introduced with the senator from california, senator fine -- feinstein, to reauthorize what has arguably been the single hardest driver behind our pro dwres to -- progress to reduce the rape kit backlog. the debbie smith law provided the resources they need to end the backlog of unsolved crimes. at one point we learned that there were perhaps as many as 400,000 forensic kits or rape kits sitting in either evidence lockers or in labs that had been untested -- 400,000. in each one of those kits is the evidence needed to identify the

assailant in a sexual assault or conversely to rule out somebody in a sexual assault. it also, as a result of the uploading of this information, if it is tested into the f.b.i. system, it can help solve a myriad of crimes, not just sexual assault cases. so the debbie smith act was one of those rare subts where -- subjects where there has always been strong bipartisan and bicameral support. more than $1 billion has been provided to forensic labs because of this law, enabling them to get untested evidence off the shell so we can provide victims with answers and we can take these assailants, which characteristically don't just do it one time, it they do it multiple times until they are ultimately caught, to get them off the street. as i said, while the primary

goal of the legislation was to reduce the rape kit backlog, under the debbie smith act, this has provided an abundance of d.n.a. evidence to solve numerous other crimes. that's because once the evidence is tested, it's uploaded in the f.b.i.'s d.n.a. database called cotus, similar to the fingerprint data databases, it can expect anybody in a particular crime which is under investigation. if a criminal commits a burglary in one state, d.n.a. from that burglary case can connect this criminal to an unsolved rape case in other states. it's that powerful. according to the national institutes of justice, 42% of the hits in the f.b.i.'s d.n.a. database system are the direct

result of debbie smith act funding -- 2 psh%. last month -- 42%. last month i visited a community in grapevine, texas, called the gate house. this is where women and children who have been affected by domestic violence can use the resources they need to restart their lives. i spoke to survivors of sexual assault and advocates of this about the debbie smith act before it expires at the end of this month. here's the thing that completely confounds me. the debbie smith act is not partisan. it's not even controversial. it's not divisive. last time we voted on it, not a single senator voted no. so there is no reason for the house to stall on this critical legislation. and if the house doesn't act by the end of the month, it will

expire. so once again, mr. president, i urge speaker pelosi to allow this bill to go to the floor of the house without further delay. it would be simply shameful to allow this program to expire, especially when she has a bipartisan bill in her hand and all she has to do is to allow it to go to the floor of the house for a vote. mr. president, i yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: