[applause]. [applause]. >> well, the u.s. senate is about to gavel in. lawmakers are planning to work on two judicial nominations for the u.s. court of appeals for the 11th circuit. at now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2.

the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. today's opening prayer will be offered by monsignor anthony j. marcaccio, pastor of st. pius the tenth from greensboro, north

carolina. the guest chaplain: let us pray. blessed are you, lord god, of all creation. you are the gifter of ever good gift, of life and liberty, of peace and prosperity, of wisdom, understanding, and right judgment. we ask that in your divine mercy you would bless our republic and in a special way the work of our senators, that they may discern all that is true, all that is honorable, all that is right, all that is excellent and worthy of praise for our nation. in this moment, make us mindful of all that has brought us together as a country and how it foster passes that which can divide us. so when all is deliberated and done here, we may be preserved as one nation under god. amen and 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 president pro tempore. mr. grassley: i would like to address the senate for one minute in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: last week a whole bunch of us midwest beautiful senators sent a -- biofuel senators sent a cover letter to president with regard to the powerful rules that are out for comment.

the president has been a supporter of biofuels, and the e.p.a. shouldn't undercut president trump's support of r.f.s. i urge the e.p.a. and administrator wheeler to adjust the proposed supplemental rule to account for an actual waive gallons using our data from past practices to send an unambiguous signal to the marketplace. i'm glad to have the opportunity to comment, and i encourage all farmers, biofuel producers, and anybody else interested in supporting the r.f.s. to make their comments. those comments should be along the lines of what was agreed to in the oval office on september 12 that the e.p.a. regulations don't reflect properly to state to the e.p.a. that you want the september 12 agreement agreed

to. so go to regulation.gov or to iowa farm bureau or iowa farm website before the deadline of november 270 -- november 27 to tell the e.p.a. to stand behind the president's oval office agreement. i yield the floor. mcconnell madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mcconnell my completion are well familiar with my repeated calls for bipartisan progress. for more than two months as the appropriations process idled at partisan roadblocks. with the road map negotiated in july by the president and the speaker and approved by each of the congressional leaders, we had the necessary commitments to move forward in good faith and avoid partisan riders that would stall the entire effort. but, of course, that didn't happen. but failing to secure funding

for the federal government before the end of the year is not an option. chairman shelby continues to lead efforts to settle on subcommittee allocations that can earn bipartisan support. today these efforts are ongoing and with our deadline to prevent a funding lapse rapidly approaching, i'm encouraged that the house will apparently -- apparently -- be voting today on a continuing resolution to keep the government funded to december 20 while talks continue. these talks must continue because it's vital that we work in good faith to fund important priorities for the coming year. but what is needed in the near term is to keep the government open for the next several weeks while this work goes on. this is not rocket science, madam president. the house needs to send us a short-term funding bill, which the senate can pass and which the president will sign. that is the way to keep government open while our important discussions continue

to make progress toward closing out the appropriations process and getting full-year bills to the floor. now, on another matter, for weeks republicans have been trying to move forward significant bipartisan legislation for the american people. senate republicans have tried to get our democratic colleagues to let us consider defense funding. house republicans have tried to get speaker pelosi to fine rally allow a vote on usmca. and in both chambers we've been asked democrats to stop slow-walking the conference committee for the critical defense bill, the ndaa. alas, madam president, our democratic colleagues have not yet been willing to budge on any of those things. so as a result, while the senate waits for the thousands send a short-term -- for the house to send us short-term fund, we'll spend time on personnel business. yesterday we advanced the nomination of robert luck to be united states circuit judge for

the 11th circuit. justice luck brings a well-rounded legal record including a clerkship on the 11th circuit, service in the u.s. attorneys office for the southern district of florida and years spent ruling from the state bench. today we'll also advance the nomination of justice barbara lagoa of florida, also to serve on the 11th circuit court of appeals. a graduate of columbia university school of law, justice lagoa has spent years practicing law serving sasse a federal prosecutor and ruling from both the state app pell lat bench and the florida supreme court. i look forward to confirming both of these nominees along with adrian zuckerman, the president's nominee to as our nation's ambassador to romania. now, on a final matter, i spoke yesterday about the courageous people of hong kong, who are standing up to beijing and speaking out for their freedoms.

but hong kongers are not alone in bravely speaking up at this time. the middle east continues to be swept by widespread and cross-sectarian demonstrations. in lebanon, in iraq, and in iran, millions are demanding a better future, greater justice, less corruption, and more democracy from their governments. these protests span three countries. each is unique. but one common thread connects them -- iran. for years iran has systemically sought to undermine the territorial integrity and manipulate the politics of countries all across the middle east. nowhere is this more apparent than in lebanon and iraq, where iranian proxies have challenged the very sovereignty of the state. in lebanon, iran backs hezbollah, the terrorist group that has become a dominant political player. hezbollah has become a state

within a state. its weapons and fighters do not work to defend the lebanese state but to embroil it in serious civil war and imperil its security by threatening israeli israel with precision rockets. in iraq, iran's islamic revolutionary guard corps have spent years sponsoring shia militias and proxies that are more loyal to tehran than to baghdad or to the people of iraq. so in both these countries, tehran has used and promoted the use of force to acquire power and to acquire influence. a few weeks ago, the leader of the quds force flew to iraq for secret meetings to guide iraqi leaders through the protests there. here's what this iranian thug told the iraqis. we in iran know how to deal with protests. enough said.

well, madam president, a valiant crackdown on peaceful protest certificates not going to solve anything. what iraqi and lebanese leaders must do is stop listening to the poisonous advice of iranian tyrants who are losing their own grip on their own people and start addressing their own citizens' demands for transparency and reform. iraq and lebanon should give their people what they want -- less corruption, less maligned foreign influence, more opportunity, and the rule of law. that is the path forward for iraq and lebanon. commit to prosperity and pluralism at home, combat corruption and injustice within all sections, protect the sovereignty of of your dun, pursue peace with your neighbors and enjoy support from the united states as well. i would note that in contrast to hezbollah's thugs, lebanon's

armed forces by most accounts continue to be one of lebanon's few institutions of national unity. the l.a.f. has respected the rights of protesters, protected them from violence, and sought to de-escalate steps on the street it. i know the u.s. military believes its training in partnership with the l.a.f. is paying off, helping it to be more professional and responsible security force. so, madam president, while these events transpire in iraq and lebanon, the iranian people themselves are also engaging in their own demonstrations. iran used to be a modern, open, and prosperous society. it could be again. now tens of thousands of iranian people themselves are raising their voices in righteous anger at what has become of their living conditions and their country. the iranian people are feeling the pain inflicted by the brutality, selfishness, and

extremism of their ruling class. the regime seems to be doing all it can to put a stop to this. reports over the weekend indicated an enormous, unprecedented internet blackout aimed at keeping iranians into the dark and suggests iranian leaders are threatening yet another violent crackdown against their own citizens. but iran's leaders know exactly what must be done to alter the course of their once-great country and unlike a better future -- unlock a better future for its citizens. iran needs to stop pursuing nuclear weapons and long-range missile capabilities, stop supporting terror and stop the horrific mistreatment of its own people. there is an entire civilized worldful of nations that get by just fine without engaging in any of these rogue state activities.

iran engages in all of them -- all of them. iranian leaders will either listen to their own citizens and start behaving like a normal nation or they will be treated more and more like the backward pariahs they have become. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the democrat leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, over the past few days and weeks, reports about the democratic protests in hong kong have grown more and more troubling. the authorities in hong kong have cracked down violently on some of the protesters, firing hundreds of rounds of tear gas at a local university. and even using lethal force in a few teaj situations. as many have observed, some of the pictures coming out of hong kong are reminiscent of a war zone. yesterday, the chinese communist party dealt another blow to hong kong's special status, criticizing a ruling by the territory's high court that reversed the hong kong government's ban on masks. the communist party declared that only the chinese legislature has the right to decide whether hong kong's laws are consistent with the hong kong basic law, and no other authority has the right to make these judgments.

that assertion by the chinese communist party is a direct assault on hong kong's judicial independence. make no mistake about it, this communist party is cruel and relentless in cracking down on any dissent in every part of china. what they're doing to the uighurs at the other end of the chinese country far away from hong kong is just brutal and awful. we in the united states stand in solidarity with the democratic protesters who have every right to assemble and petition their government for the rights of the citizens of hong kong. the administration and the president himself should voice their support for the protesters in hong kong, which would send an important message to the chinese communist party not to get involved or in any way escalate the situation. secretary pompeo's call for calm

yesterday is weak tea, not close to enough. beyond a presidential statement, there are actions we can take here in congress, because frankly i have been very disappointed that the president in this dramatic situation in hong kong does not do what presidents, democrat and republican, have done in the past, stand up for human rights, stand up for democracy. he's not done that. he doesn't seem to care. and as we know, he seems more eager to please dictators than please those who are fighting for democracy. but congress can act. we have a bipartisan bill here in the senate with many cosponsors, including the senior senators from florida and new jersey, and maryland as well, that would reaffirm our steadfast support for hong kong's autonomy, democracy, and respect for human rights and amend the hong kong policy act to give us the tools to safeguard and protect hong kong's democracy and autonomy

and hold accountable those responsible for the abuse of human rights of the people of hong kong. there is no objection to this bill on the democratic side of the aisle. we believe the senate should pass it. if there are objections on the republican side, let's take a few days and work through the bill on the floor. we haven't done much legislation. here's a place where we could come together in a bipartisan way. so if there are no objections, great, let's pass it this afternoon. i believe the senator from florida will make a unanimous consent statement in that regard. and if there are objections, i would urge the republican leader, who has spoken occupant and defended the protests, to take a few days, let someone try to invoke cloture. it will fail miserably. and let's vote this, and then maybe the house will pass it. that would be something i think would happen, and the president

as well. in addition, the senator from oregon along with some others has a bill that we shouldn't sell -- u.s. companies shouldn't sell lethal types of equipment to the hong kong police that are used on the protesters. i would hope we could find a way to work that proposal either into this bill or maybe we could do a u.c. alongside it, a unanimous consent request, alongside it. nonetheless, we should pass the bipartisan bill in the senate, reconcile it with similar legislation in the house, and quickly send it to the president's desk. it would be the strongest action congress could take immediately to demonstrate america's support for the protests in hong kong. it would send a strong and clear message to the ruling party in beijing. it would make a real difference. again, i would urge the republican leader, the words on the floor he mentioned yesterday were good but not sufficient.

let's move this legislation. if we can, by unanimous consent. if not, by having a debate on the floor so that the hand full of senators who might be trying to be blocking it are thwarted and the bill would move forward. now this morning the american people will hear more important testimony in the house impeachment inquiry from lieutenant colonel alexander vindman of the national security council and from jennifer williams, an advisor to the vice president. regrettably, some republicans, including one in this chamber, have tried without evidence or substantiation to undermine, to call into question, to smear the credibility of the witnesses, including lieutenant colonel vindman, a purple heart recipient who has spent his life in service to our country. the attacks on the witnesses are painful and wrong. they're reminiscent of a brutal

country, not a democratic republic that we are. i hope everyone will treat these witnesses with respect and listen to their testimony with an open mind. it is unbecoming of any senator to smear these patriots, whether they agree or disagree with their testimony. the house has a responsibility to seek the truth and uncover all of the facts. and if it comes to it, the senate has a responsibility to examine the evidence and render impartial judgment. finally, on infrastructure, as the impeachment inquiry continues, democrats in both chambers continue to do the work of the american people. just last week my colleagues in the house discussed a proposal for a very significant investment in infrastructure. senate democrats at the very beginning of the trump administration proposed a $1 trillion infrastructure plan that would create 15 million

jobs. at our meeting in the white house, i mentioned this to president trump and asked him to join us in either supporting our bill or working to modify it in a way that he might be able to support it. at the time we had hoped that president trump, after promising over and over again in his campaign that he'd pursue a major overhaul of our nation's infrastructure, would work with us on specific legislation. but unfortunately and typically, three years into the trump administration, instead of working with democrats, president trump has done next to nothing. earlier this year the president walked out on a meeting -- walked out of a meeting on infrastructure between himself and speaker pelosi and me and some other congressmen and senators. we haven't heard from him on the issue since. meanwhile leader comoin has turned the senate -- leader mcconnell has turned the senate into a legislative graveyard and seems uninterested in any bipartisan, bicameral

legislation. it is so typical of this administration of president trump. he campaigns on infrastructure, has commercials running right now saying democrats are not doing anything on infrastructure, when he is the one who has done nothing. he has an amazing penchant for looking at his own faults and then pointing the finger at others and saying those faults are theirs. it's glaring on infrastructure. the idea that the house impeachment inquiry is some sort of distraction from other issues is plain wrong. president trump, we're doing nothing here in the senate. come talk to us about infrastructure, and we can get something done. democrats in the house, democrats in the senate are willing to work with our republican colleagues right now. we have over 200 house-passed bills we could consider here on the floor and plenty of bipartisan senate bills besides, from bills to lower the cost of prescription drugs to election security to the

violence against women act. and we would like to work on infrastructure, a large infrastructure bill as well. it is entirely, entirely up to president trump and leader mcconnell to decide if we're going to make progress on a topic like infrastructure or if the senate under mcconnell's leadership continues to be a graveyard for commonsense ideas that help so many millions of americans. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. thune: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. 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, the judiciary. robert j. luck of florida to be united states circuit judge for

the 11th circuit. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. thune: madam president, our most fundamental responsibility as members of congress is to provide for our nation's defense. and a big part of that is ensuring our men and women in uniform have the resources that they need to defend our country. that means of course that we have to ensure that our military receives adequate funding to meet today's priorities and to prepare for the threats of tomorrow. it also means that we need to ensure that our military receives timely funding. our military doesn't just need sufficient funding to cover defense priorities. it also needs to receive that money on time on a predictable schedule. that means passing the defense appropriations bill before the end of each fiscal year instead of forcing the military to rely on temporary funding measures that leave the military in doubt about funding levels and unable to start important projects. madam president, right now we're almost two full months into the 2020 fiscal year.

we should have passed a defense appropriations bill by the end of september, but we didn't. because unfortunately our democrat colleagues were unable to resist the chance to pick yet another fight with the president. madam president, this wasn't supposed to happen. at the end of the summer, congressional leaders of both parties and the president reached an agreement on funding levels for 2020 and 2021. leaders also agreed on a number of guidelines for appropriations bills including a ban on poison pills intended to derail appropriations legislation. the idea behind this agreement was to pave the way for the timely passage of appropriations bills and to prevent the kind of situation that we're in right now, almost two months behind on passing defense and other funding. but unfortunately democrats chose to renege on this agreement. senate democrats are currently holding up defense funding by insisting on the type of poison pills that they promised to

forego just a few months ago. the leader has attempted to bring up pt defense appropriations bill twice, and both times, both times senate democrats have filibustered the legislation. it is deeply disappointing, madam president. i understand that my democrat colleagues are looking for any opportunity to pick a fight with the president, but funding for our men and women in uniform should not be subjected to democrats' partisan whims. thanks to democrats, right now our military is operating under a continuing resolution that leaves the military short of the funding it needs for the 2020 fiscal year. that has real consequences. in addition to leaving the military underfunded, a continuing resolution prevents the military from starting key projects that will help ensure our men and women in uniform are prepared to meet the threats of the future. the pentagon can't start new

procurement projects. new research and development initiatives that keep us a step ahead of our adversaries are put on hold. all told, under a continuing resolution, the military's purchasing power is reduced by roughly $5 billion each quarter. madam president, to put that in perspective, that's the equivalent of losing out on about 56 joint strike fighter planes, depending on the variant, every threel months. that $5 billion that the pentagon is going without is urgently needed funding for critical military priorities. and the longer the pentagon goes without this funding, the greater the consequences for our military preparedness. madam president, playing politics with our national defense is unacceptable. we owe our men and women in uniform timely, reliable, and adequate defense funding, and we owe every man, woman, and

child in the united states the same thing. the safety of every person in this country depends on the strength of our military, and i hope that at least some of my democrat colleagues will see their way to joining republicans to get this year's defense appropriations bill to the president's desk. it's time to get our men and women in uniform the funding that they need and that they deserve. madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, on september 11, president donald trump held a press conference with the first lady in the oval office. he announced that his administration would finally be taking bold action to combat our nation's youth vaping epidemic. epidemic is what the federal

drug administration characterizing the vaping that's going on in schools across america today. not just high schools where 27% of the students are currently vaping, but middle schools and grade schools as well. seated next to the president on september 11 in the oval office was the first lady. on the other side was the secretary of the department of health and human services, alex a disor. directly across from the press was acting commissioner of the food and drug administration dr. -- dr. ned sharples. president trump stated we have a problem in this country called vaping especially when it comes to innocent children and we're going to have to do something about it. end of quote. then secretary azor said, and i quote, an entire generation of children risk becoming addicted

to nicotine. with the president's support, the food and drug administration intends to finalize a guidance document that would require that all flavors other than tobacco flavor would be removed from the market. this would include mint and menthol flavoring as well as candy flavors, bubble gum flavor, fruit flavor and alcohol flavor. end of quote. explaining why this action was necessary, the f.d.a. commissioner said flavored e-cigarette products drive childhood use, end of quote. secretary azar and acting commissioner sharples committed to finalizing this guidance, in their own words, within a couple of weeks. and yet here we are more than two months later with no e-cigarette flavor ban in place. what's worse, now there are reports that president trump has

decided to reverse himself, to break the promise which he made to american families, as a direct result of lobbying from big tobacco and big vape companies. we know who this president is hearing from. he's hearing from juul, the company primarily responsible for today's youth vaping epidemic. he's hearing from altria, the big tobacco company that just bought a major stake in juul. and he's hearing from the vaping technology organization which represents vaping shops nationwide. it makes sense why these companies would want the president to reverse himself, to break his word to american families, because they make profits on the backs of our kids, just like big tobacco did for so many years. today now almost 30% of all high

school age children are vaping. more than five million kids. where do they come up with those numbers? from this administration's report to the american people. 4% of adults are vaping, up to 30% of high school kids. when when they show these pictures with adults with buttons that say we vape and we vote, it's a tiny sliver of america. kids should be wearing buttons saying we videotape and our health is -- we vape and our health is at risk. over the last two years of president donald trump's presidency, the number of children vaping has increased by 135%. more than one in four high school kids are using e-cigarettes and more than one in ten middle school children are following their example. kids are using these products because of the cool sleek designs of devices like juul and

because of the flavors designed to appeal just to kids. listen to them. cotton candy, iewn -- unicorn milk, cool mint, mom's sugar could sugar -- cookie and menthol. more than 80% of children who vape started with flavored e-cigarettes. does anyone believe that these vaping flavors are actually intended for a 50-year-old chain smoker looking to quit cigarettes? flavors like farley's gnarley sauce, blue raz by candy king? do you honestly think a 50-year-old trying to break a tobacco has been the is going to buy cotton candy by zonk flavoring?

every single one of these products is on the market today without review from the food and drug administration. that's because under president trump, the f.d.a. decided to delay regulation of these products for years. and while the f.d.a. dithers, children get addicted. as a result, it's the wild, wild west out there with respect to unapproved, unregulated, dangerous, addictive vaping products, and it's our kids who are paying the price. despite what big vape says, these products are not safe. in recent months we've seen thousands of illnesses and 42 deaths associated with vaping, including four in illinois. two weeks ago a woman came up to me and said you don't know me, i'm a nurse, and she gave me the name of the hospital. i just want to tell you i was there when that 22-year-old man died last week from vaping. he had been in our hospital for months waiting for a lung transplant because of the damage he had done to his lungs by vaping.

he couldn't find a donor, and he died. there are other known dangers associated with e-cigarettes and nicotine. nicotine is toxic, highly addictive substance that raises blood pressure and spikes adrenaline, increasing the risk of heart disease. nicotine can have short and long-term negative health impacts on the developing brain. and kids who use e-cigarettes are more likely to transition to tobacco cigarettes, and that kills 480,000 americans each year. there is hardly a family in this country that hasn't been touched by tobacco-related death and disease. a dartmouth study shows that e-cigarette use leads to 81 new smokers for every one smoker who quits. don't buy the pitch from juul that you ought to be vaping so that you can get off of tobacco cigarettes. it's running just the opposite. kids starting on vaping

converting to tobacco cigarettes. so what do we know about e-cigarettes? they're predominantly used by our children. flavors play a major role in hooking kids on nicotine. nicotine use harms the developing brain, and kids who vape are more likely than their peers to transition to tobacco cigarettes. now let's consider what we don't know about e-cigarettes. we don't know if they're safe. we don't know if they actually help adult smokers quit. and we often don't know what their ingredients are in those devices. e-cigarette flavors need to come off the market unless or until they can prove that they have a public health benefit, and good luck to that. the president of the united states, the secretary of health and human services, and the head of the food and drug administration all told us on september 11 they were on the side of kids and families and

public health, and they promised us they were going to do something about it. well today i'm sending the president a letter asking him to keep his word, to ban e-cigarette flavors which threaten our kids with a lifetime of nicotine addiction, illness, and sadly, even death. along with families nationwide, i'm hoping that the president cares more about children than he does about the lobbying pressure from big tobacco and big vape companies. just because they can buy an ad on fox tv does not mean they're right. for goodness sakes, mr. president, stick with your promise of september 11. protect our kids from this vaping epidemic. i ask consent that my letter to the president be added in the "congressional record" at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. now i'd like to speak and ask that my remarks be placed at a separate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, thanks to the affordable care act, 20 million americans have health insurance, including

more than a million in my state of illinois. why is it so important? let me tell you the story of stephanie from oak park, ill noi. stephanie wrote me recently about her son who has a history of mental health and substance abuse. because of the affordable care act her son is able to stay on her hirns plan until he -- health insurance plan until he reaches the age of 26. the affordable care act requires all health plans cover mental health and addiction treatment. hard to imagine, people are selling health insurance in america that did not coamp mental -- cover mental health and adecks. -- and addiction. two senators on the floor of the senate, wellstone and domenici to require every health insurance plan in america cover mental health. it's so obvious. it's an issue which many families place, but health insurance plans were excluding it. why did these two senators,

wildly different politically, decide that they would team up for this? paul wellstone had a brother, senator domenici had a son, they remember struggling with mental illness and didn't have protection in their health insurance. so they fought to include it. thank goodness they did. because of that health law, insurance companies cannot discriminate against stephanie's son because of his medical history. her son just graduated college. she's thankful he can stay on her company's policy until he gets a job and she's thankful that her premiums are not higher due to her son's health needs. stephanie is afraid, if these protections go away because of a court case that's currently pending or the actions of the republican majority in the senate, her son will be uninsurable or face enormous medical bills that he's unable to pay. stephanie wrote me and she said if the affordable care act were to be eliminated, they're, quote, contemplating leaving

this country. they need manageable health care. democrats are fighting to keep health care protections for people like stephanie and her son. because of the affordable care act, people with preexisting conditions can no longer be denied coverage or charged higher premiums. is there anyone among us who doesn't know someone with a preexisting condition? i have one. this protects five million people in illinois with a preexisting condition. insurance companies are no longer allowed to impose annual or lifetime caps on benefits or deny coverage for mental health or substance abuse treatment, prescription drugs, or hospitalizations. young people are allowed to stay on their parents' plan until they reach age 26. despite the republican and trump administration's continued efforts to repeal these protections, both in congress and in the courts, health insurance under the affordable care act is open for business. if you're interested and want to know the policies available,

healthcare.gov is the website to visit. open enrollment began on november 1 and end december 15. if you can sign up. it is a protection you hope you never need but if you need it, it's good to have it. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. casey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i would ask consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i would also ask consent, mr. president, to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, thank you very much. beginning with russia's interference in our 2016 national elections to the recent withdrawal of united states troops from syria, president trump has made multiple statements and decisions that serve only to benefit vladimir

putin's agenda to undermine democracy and expand russia's influence around the world. taken together these actions aren't just a threat to united states national security but they also undercut and diminish some of the core tenets and values of america's democracy and global leadership. the united states is a coequal branch of government must recognize this threat and act as a body to ensure institutions at home and interest abroad are protected. thus far we have not lived up to this solemn responsibility. let me start with a seminole news article from "the washington post" just recently. white house reporter ann geren in her october 25, 2019 article,

how russia has asserted dominance globally. the headline reads, and i'm quoting the headline, trump's moves in ukraine and syria have a common denominator, both help russia, unquote. she writes as follows, quote, president trump has taken actions -- i'm sorry. quote, president trump has taken actions that have had the effect of helping the authoritarian leader of russia. the president's actions, quote, in syria and ukraine add to the list of policy moves and public statements that have boosted russia during his presidency, whether that was their central purpose or not, confounding critics who have warned that he has taken too soft a stance toward a nation led by a

strongman hostile to the united states. unquote. the article goes on to discuss how president trump's withdrawal of u.s. troops from syria has allowed russia to assert a more dominant role in the region. she also discusses how the president's intimidation of ukraine's newly elected president, president zelensky, has become a part of an impeachment inquiry and takes away from ukraine as it continues to grapple with russian aggression. she also notes that president trump has, quote, publicly questioned the usefulness of nato, the post-world war ii military alliance established as a bulwark against first the soviet union and now russia and

the utility of the european union, a political and economic alliance putin would like to weaken. unquote. all written by ann geren. these actions have led to a growing consensus among the national security community that the president is not serving the national interest. let me move to a second part of this. sadly, president trump's recent actions with regard to syria and ukraine are, unfortunately, not isolated. president trump has been consistent in taking actions which favor russia. as early as april of 2016, then-candidate donald trump, vowed to pursue closer ties to russia if elected to the presidency. even before he took office, by twitter and other platforms, he was signaling to vladimir putin

his deference to a putin-driven u.s.-russia dynamic. from there the american people have only learned more about the trump campaign's ties to russia and russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. as the intelligence community -- i should say as the intelligence communities unclassified report concluded, and i'm quoting, we assess russian president vladimir putin ordered an influenced campaign in 2016 aimed at the u.s. presidential election. russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the u.s.-democratic process, denigrate secretary clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. we further assess putin and the russian government developed a

clear preference for president-elect trump. unquote. the interference with our election process by a hostile government was an attack on our democracy and a threat to our national security carried out by russian operatives at the direction of vladimir putin himself. since special counsel mueller's appointment and special counsel to investigate russia's attack, 34 indictments have been connected to the investigation, including indictments against russian individuals and russian companies as well as former trump campaign manager paul manafort, deputy campaign manager rick gates, who were charged with, quote, conspiracy against the united states. unquote. special counsel mueller also secured guilty pleas from other campaign advisors including

george pep -- george papadopoulos, and russia impeded the -- trump impeded the russia probe. the senate intelligence community and robert mueller and his team have done great service to our nation for investigating the ties to russia and russian interference to the election. the findings only further confirm that president trump not only benefited from russian interference, but as ann gearann wrote in the october 15 "washington post" story, quote, president trump, quote, has also disputed at times the u.s. intelligence community's conclusion that russia interfered in the 2016 election to boost his candidacy and only

reluctantly signed a bill imposing sanctions on russia for the transgressions after weeks of resisting the measure which he called, quote, seriously flawed, unquote, regarding ann gearan. she is -- the -- caatsa, that's legislation which i supported and it passed both houses of congress with bipartisan to impose sanctions on u.s. adversaries, including russia for interference in our election. i believe it is likely that if caatsa did not clearly prohibit it, president trump would have removed -- removed preexisting russia sanctions by now. by interfering in our national

elections and elevating donald trump's prospects for success as a candidate, vladimir putin was assuring that a personal ally would be installed in the white house and that that particular ally would clear the way for putin to advance his foreign policy goals around the world. let me move to a second -- i should say a third part of this. if it isn't bad enough that the president isn't himself undermining our intelligence community's findings, he has deployed attorney general william barr to try and discredit those findings by our intelligence community with regard to interactions with allies. william barr has been traveling the world chasing conspiracy theories and investigating president trump's complaints about the origins of the government's investigation into

russian election interference. specifically, the attorney general is examining whether u.s. intelligence and law enforcement agencies acted properly when they examined possible ties between the trump campaign and russia which ultimately led to special counsel mueller's investigation. we have learned that this probe is now a criminal investigation suggesting that it is focused on the unfounded allegations pushed by the president's allies about how the russia probe was started. considering that special counsel mueller, the intelligence community, and the bipartisan senate intelligence committee all confirmed in great detail that russia interfered in the 2016 election, it is entirely unclear what legal or factual proceed cat attorney general barr is relying on to

investigate this into the russian investigation. attorney general barr is pursuing these efforts despite the fact that italy's prime minister stated that italy's intelligence services played no role in the russian investigation. it appears that he's using -- attorney general barr is using the justice department to chase unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that could benefit the president politically and also undermine special counsel mueller's russia investigation. the attorney general has also demonstrated eagerness to prejudge his own investigation by already telling lawmakers in april that he believed that, quote, spying did occur, unquote, by the f.b.i. on the trump campaign. so the president has dispatched

the top united states law enforcement official around the world to pursue a bias investigation into an effort to undermine our intelligence agencies and to undermine the work of a special counsel who was apoibtd i by -- appointed by the very same justice department that attorney general barr leads with the primary goal -- the primary goal being to clear the government of vladimir putin of wrongdoing. it's hard to comprehend or adequately articulate how disturbing that is. let me move to another part of the evidence with regard to how the president deals with president putin in his -- and his government. the helsinki summit. president trump's dangerous deference to vladimir putin was

most evident at the july 2018 summit in helsinki. putin and president trump had a two-hour one-on-one meeting followed by an unprecedented press conference. president trump appears to overwhelmingly favor one-on-one closed door direct communications with putin on a regular basis. i have to ask at least two questions among many we could ask. question number one is, what is he hiding? number two, why not have experienced u.s. personnel present at such bilateral meetings? one quote. even more disturbing were the president's statements following the trump-putin meeting. here is a brief summary of what happened at that meeting. president trump praised putin and his leadership.

number two, he repeatedly sided with putin over our intelligence community asserting that russia did not -- did not in fact interfere in the 2016 election. this second fact about the president repeatedly siding with putin over our intelligence community was a grave offense by the president that made our nation less safe, in my judgment for sure less safe. it was one of the worst moments in any american presidency. number three, in my brief summary of that meeting, that public meeting in helsinki. number three, mr. putin was silent the whole time when this was happening. president trump's rambling comments over several minutes

not only reflect the president's disturbing desire to flatter and to show support for putin but also his complete failure in that instance, his complete failure to advance united states interests. let me move to the impeachment that is under way in ukraine. the transcript of the now infamous july 25 phone call with ukrainian president vladimir -- volodymyr zel zelensky that is e subject of the current impeachment also reflects the president's failure to prioritize u.s. national security interests when it comes to russia. i'm going back to anne gearan in that story in the "post" of october 15 this year. here's what anne gearan writes. quote, during that call, trump did not mention long-standing u.s. policy goals for ukraine, including standing up to russian

pressure and he may have tarred and weakened zelensky in his winning anticorruption platform by dragging him into domestic u.s. politics. unquote. such major omissions send a clear signal to putin that he could expand his aggression in ukraine beyond crimea and to the ukrainian people -- and also the message to the ukrainian people that zelensky is not going to be the strong leader with u.s. backing that ukraine needs at this time. we have already seen the impact of president trump's abandonment of ukraine amid this impeachment scandal. in early october president zelensky was effectively backed into a corner to sign ukraine on to the so-called stein meyer formula which sets the path toward elections in the donbass region of ukraine and eventual

negotiations with russia over the future of russian occupied territories. he did this without achieving previously imposed preconditions of russian troop withdrawal and security for the elections. zelensky was effectively shamed into pursuing this stein meyer formula after president trump urged him to negotiate with putin -- with putin several times on camera during the united nations general assembly meetings in september. as anne gearan puts it in that "post" article, quote, the result, a country that was looking for signs of strong u.s. backing amid worries that russia could seek to move its aggression beyond the annexation of crimea has been left -- that nation has been left to wonder about the trump administration's commitment to its national interests.

unquote. let me move to syria, mr. president. president trump's latest moves in syria only further amplify the alarm over this president's affinity for vladimir putin. in early october president trump announced the abrupt withdrawal of u.s. troops from syria clearing the way for turkey to pursue a military operation against the united states kurdish allies in northern syria. following an initial u.s. brokered cease-fire, turkish and russian authorities have agreed to more -- a more permanent status sharing control of syria's northern border. turkish and russian forces are not only occupying kurdish-held areas but also further expanding russia's rural -- role in syria and committing war crimes against kurdish civilians according to the united nations. russia has already occupied u.s.

military camps in the region and turkish president erdogan's deepening relationship with vladimir putin as evidenced by turkey's purchase of the russian s-400 missile system only undercuts u.s. influence in syria all but guaranteeing that u.s. interests will not -- u.s. interests will not be represented in a future syrian political settlement. president trump's decision serves to benefit vladimir putin prior to withdrawal, the united states was russia's only military equal in syria. but russia is now the primary and according to some analysts, the sole power broker in syria. in the vacuum left by the united states, putin will be able to return control of the country to

asad, exercise increase control over turkey, a nato ally and return russia's cold war era dominance in the middle east. as george young university russia specialist andrew bennet put it, quote, what is clear is that russia and the assad regime that it backs have been the big winners in trump's abrupt retreat. now suddenly putin is back in the driver's seat in syria with leverage over all sides. unquote. but mr. president, it's even worse than that. let me recount some recent news with regard to actions by vladimir putin. president trump's transgression goes beyond simply allowing russia to fill a vacuum. on october 13, just two days before anne gearan's "washington post" story, "the new york times" reported that, quote, the

russian air force has repeatedly bombed hospitals in syria in order to crush the last pockets of resistance to president bashar al-assad, unquote. the "times" published evidence in that story that the russians bombed four syrian hospitals in a 12-hour period in may of this year. during the assault, the surgical hospital in idlib province was struck four times in 30 minutes. let me say that again. a hospital was struck four times in 30 minutes. dozens of hospitals and clinics in idlib province have been struck since. and syrian medical workers live in constant fear of the next strike. russia continues to act with impunity. not only did it bomb another hospital in idlib last week, russia is using its sway at the

united nations security council where u.s. leadership has diminished significantly under this administration to limit the scope and the impact of a u.n. inquiry into these bombings. such atrocities go beyond the pale of violating the geneva's conventions and laws of war. they demonstrate just how ruthless putin and his regime are and the lengths they're willing to go to assert russia's influence in the middle east. and the tragedy is this administration is allowing it to happen. under this administration we have seen u.s. leadership erode in multila -- and multilateral institutions deteriorate to the point where the u.n. is powerless to hold russia accountable for these atrocities. i cannot emphasize enough that this administration is not only failing the american people with regard to our relationship with russia and national security

interests but it is making us less safe by allowing unspeakable atrocities to occur against innocent civilians all on our watch. mr. president, i would ask consent to have the remainder of my remarks placed in a different part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, i'll be brief because i only have about five minutes before we have to move on. but i wanted to turn to some brief comments about the courageous public servants that we've watched and will continue to watch testify before the house intelligence committee both last week and again this week in the impeachment inquiry. we heard from george kent and ambassador taylor, ambassador crow von vich -- yoyanovith. mile an hour remarks will not do justice for all those who will

testify in their courage but i want to make some brief comments. these individuals that i mentioned and so many others are putting their careers and reputations on the line to testify publicly in defense of u.s. national security, moral leadership in our democratic institutions. it is outrageous and that's an understatement that they've been subject to partisan attacks. public serve varntses who sack -- servants who sacrificed so much for our nation. in the case of the diplomats, the diplomats have been attacked without any support or defense from secretary of state pompeo or other senior department of state officials. we should all be inspired by these and countless other public servants who work to protect and serve the united states every day. when i reflect upon their service to our country and their integrity, i'm reminded of just one line from america the beautiful. o beautiful for patriot dream that sees beyond the years. one of the dreams of a patriot, of course, is to see beyond our

own circumstances, to dream about a better future, by upholding our institutions, and by serving the rule of law in our democracy and our constitution. and i'll skip over all of the information we already know about the service of these ambassadors and just conclude with some comments about what happened today. lieutenant colonel vindman today was before his -- before questioning by the committee members was going through his experience. i'll just do it briefly. infantry officer, foreign area officer specializing in european political military affairs, a political military affairs officer serving on the national security council, serving our country in combat and in paying the price of being wounded in combat. here's what he said at the end of his statement today. he talked about -- lieutenant

colonel vindman talked about his father. he said his courageous decision to come to this country in spite of a deep sense of gratitude in my brothers and myself and instilled in us a sense of duty and service. all three of us have served or are currently serving in the military. our collective military service is a special part of our family's story in america. he goes on to say, i'm grateful for my father's brave act of hope 40 years ago and for the privilege of being an american citizen and public servant where i can live free of fear for mine and my family's safety. he contrasted that -- unquote. that's the end of the quotation. he contrasted that with what happens in russia. and i think it's a good reminder for all of us. let me just conclude with these thoughts, mr. president. it's appalling to see individuals such as lieutenant colonel vindman who have dedicated their entire lives to the safety and security of the

united states be smeared by the president and by his attack dogs who are more concerned about tweets and fox news headlines than protecting our nation's domestic foundations. nothing the president has said or done in his nearly three years as president convinces me he has any understanding of public service. looking beyond the current impeachment inquiry, this administration's blatant disregard and disrespect for career diplomats has had a grave impact on the state department and our national security agencies' ability to recruit the next generation of talented committed public servants who promote u.s. interests abroad. i will not allow this administration's continuing assault on our diplomats. to unde -- to undermine or devalue patriots and those who protect our nation. the ambassador overs and

officials -- the ambassadors and others have lived honorable and dutiful lives in service to the united states of america. we owe them our deepest gratitude and appreciation for their integrity and commitment to american values. these are real american heroes who, despite the president's bullying and harassment, have stood up in defense of our democratic institutions and the values that the founders fought for to guide our nation. mr. president, i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor to talk about the wind production tax credit. this is a subject that i've talked about before and the senator from pennsylvania, the other senator from pennsylvania, senator toomey, will, i believe

come soon on the same subject. but the wind production tax credit is so generous with taxpayers' money that wind developers can actually give away their electricity for free and still make a profit. let me say that again. i'm talking today about the wind production tax credit which is a tax subsidy, taxpayer dollars given to wind developers and it's so generous that the developers can actually in some cases give away their electricity for free and still make a profit. that wind production tax credit's been extended 11 times and has been on the books for more than 25 years. this was a tax credit that was supposed to jump-start a new industry, 25 years of

jump-starting. four years ago congress agreed to end it. we thought that was it. and in doing so, congress asked taxpayers to provide another $24 billion. according to the joint committee on taxation to extend $ 24 billion more in subsidies for another five years and gradually phase out the credit. so that's what we thought we did four years ago. spent $24 billion more in exchange for phasing out and ending the wind production tax credit. now, mr. president, this is on top of the $10 billion taxpayers paid between 2008 and 2015 and the billions more that taxpayers have paid since the wind production tax credit was created in 1992.

that was supposed to be the end of it, mr. president, four years ago, the end of the wind production tax credit. remember that it was supposed to jump-start a new industry. president obama's energy secretary said years ago that wind is already a mature industry. that was during the obama administration. but now some members of congress are trying to break the agreement of four years ago to end the wind production tax credit. the house, ways and means committee earlier this summer has legislation that extends that credit through the end of 2020. this huge amount of money is not the only thing wrong with that proposal. first, the wind production tax credit undercuts reliable electricity like nuclear power. this is called negative pricing, which is when wind developers have such a big subsidy that they can give away their

electricity and still make money. if you're a wind developer, for every kilowatt hour of electricity one of these 40-story high wind structures produces, the taxpayers will pay you up to 2.3 cents, which in some markets is more than the wholesale value of each kilowatt hour of electricity. negative pricing such as this distorts the marketplace, it puts at risk more reusually forms of energy such as nuclear power which produces 60% of all the carbon-free electricity in the united states. in contrast wind produces about 19% of all the carbon-free electricity in the united states. i think it's important to produce carbon-free electricity. i believe climate change is a problem and that humans are a cause of the problem. then why wouldn't we undercut the production of nuclear power

which is 60% of our carbon-free electricity by the negative pricing of this big expensive wind production tax credit. mr. president, when nuclear power available expecting a country the size of the united states to operate on windmills is the energy equivalent of going to war in sailboats. second, in my view, windmills destroy the environment rather than save it. you could run these 40-story structures from georgia to maine to produce electricity, scarring the entire eastern landscape or you can produce the same amount of electricity with eight nuclear power plants. and if you did run these giant structures from georgia to maine, you'd still need natural gas or nuclear power to produce electricity when the wind is not blowing, which is most of the time. there is a much better way to spend the dollars that are available for clean energy. instead of subsidizing wind

developers, the united states could use that money to double the nearly $6.6 billion that the federal government spends on basic energy research to make truly bold breakthroughs that will help us provide cleaner, cheaper energy and raise family incomes. earlier this year i came to the senate floor and called for a new manhattan project for clean energy, a five-year project with ten grand challenges that we use american research and technology to put our country and the world firmly on a path toward cleaner, cheaper energy. specifically, i encouraged funding breakthroughs in advanced nuclear reactors and natural gas in carbon capture, better batteries, greener buildings, electric vehicles, cheaper solar, fusion, advanced

computing, doubling energy research funding. all of that is a better use of funding than more funding for wind developers that is so generous that in some cases they can give away their electricity and still make a profit. so, mr. president, let wind energy go where we said it should go in 2015. let it go unsubsidized into the free market. that's where we thought we sent it four years ago and that's where it should go. i thank the president and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i want to join my colleague from tennessee in explaining why we ought to allow this deal to stand, the deal that was struck some years ago to phase out this incredibly inefficient subsidy. i thank the -- my colleague from

tennessee for his leadership on this issue. and, as you know, mr. president, this is a very, very large tax subsidy. the government is already set to spend $67 billion in energy tax subsidies just over the next five years and we should be very clear about this. these subsidies lead to a lower standard of living. when we choose to take an inefficient form of energy and throw a lot of money at it, it just lowers the standard of living. we have less resources available for all the other things we could be doing with that money. the wind production credit, as my colleague from tennessee mentioned, began in 1992 for the simple reason -- very straightforward simple reason, it couldn't compete. it's completely, economically uncompetitive. and so the idea is we'll have this temporary subsidy to enable the wind production to reach an economy of sale, reach a

maturity in the industry that would allow it to compete and the consensus at the time was that ought to be achieved by about 1999, seven years of taxpayer subsidies and the industry should be on its feet, it should be competitive, there would be technological improvements and everything would be fine. mr. president, that was 20 years ago and we've been subsidizing it ever since. we extended this program 11 times and the wind component of all of our energy subsidies is about $25 billion over a five-year period and they still can't compete. they still can't compete. and the reason they can't compete is it's is it extremely expensive to build the electricity generating capacity if it's a windmill. it's much, much more expensive than alternative forms of energy. the cost of building wind capacity versus natural gas, for instance, is pretty stark. it costs less than $1,000 per

kilowatt of capacity for a natural gas fired power plant. it costs over $1,600 per kilowatt for wind production. now, obviously after the production is done, windmills don't require ongoing fuel. amazingly enough that savings is never enough to recoup the huge amount of capital you have to lay out out front before this expensive technology. you don't have to take my word for it. warren buffett had something to say about this. he knows something about economics. warren buffett said, and i quote, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. that's the only reason to build them this they don't make sense without the tax credit. end quote. so that's the reality it we -- the reality we have. it is compounded by the fact that wind energy is inherently unreliable. this is no surprise to my

colleagues, you don't generates energy from a windmill unless the wind is blowing. unfortunately it's a fact of nature that wind energy tends to peak in the middle of the night and our early morning hours when our energy needs are at their lowest. it's very hard to store electricity so we end up with this bizarre situation that the senator from tennessee alluded to when the wind farms are generating electricity when we don't need it because there's a wind storm in the middle of the night. but because they are so heavily subsidized by taxpayers, the wind farm companies are willing to pay the electric grid operator to take their electricity. normally you sell your electricity. they actually will pay money to have the electrical grid take their electricity. this is extremely disruptive for the conventional sources of

electricity, whether it's nuclear or gas or coal, because they have to be there all the time to adjust for the wild fluctuations for wind-generated electricity. it is very hard for them to have a viable business model when occasionally the model they produce has a negative value. it's just by -- bizarre. i want to stress another element of this, which is the original rationale. it was a new industry, it was going to need help getting on its feet and getting established and after some period of time it would be able to compete on its own. this is no longer even remotely the case. in fact, there's a tremendous amount of wind-generated electricity in america because these subsidies have been so big for so long. in 1999 we had only 4.5 billion kilowatt hours generated from

wind, in 1975. we had a 6,000% crease. it is all because these subsidies are so extensive and i think it was in part because of the enormous growth of this industry, the maturity of it, the decade's long history that congress fiernlly decided back in 2015 that we would phase out these subsidies. we wouldn't do it immediately but we would phase it out by 2019. 120 years after the subsidies were supposed to end, we are on a path to phasing this out and having these taxpayer subsidies expire at the end of this year. and the wind energy association in 2015, at the tame that they looked at this, quote, growth in the wrind industry is expected to remain strong when the p.t.c. is fully phased out. it is the production tax credit,

that's what we're talking about. lo and behold we get to the end of 2019, or nearly so, and sure enough some folks in congress are saying, well, let's not -- let's not stick to that deal. let's continue the subsidy even longer. so we had a markup in the other chamber, the ways and means committee of the other chamber to add another year extension for the wind tax credit. that costs another $2 billion. and, mr. president, i just don't think we should break the deal that we had in 2015. this is an inefficient use of taxpayer money. this makes our economy less efficient. this lowers our standard of living. and it is disruptive to the ongoing base sources of electricity that we need across the country. last point i want to make is it's not as though we have an energy shortage in this country. it's not as though we're going to have to turn to hostile

foreign sources to get the energy to replace if we don't continue heavily subsidizing wind production. the fact is we have staggering amounts of natural gas, enough natural gas to serve our electricity generation needs for the indefinite future. we're now as of 2017 the u.s. became a net exporter of natural gas. it's a huge growing source of electricity generation that is clean and that is reliable and that is incredibly abundant. so, mr. president, we came to the right conclusion some years ago. now is our opportunity to stick to it. and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas.

mr. cornyn: mr. president, history has taught us that the closer you get to election day, the harder it gets to pass legislation here in the congress. it's hard anyway by design. you have to pass a bill through committees in the house and the senate. each body has to pass a bill. if they're different, then they have to reconcile those in a conference committee. and then you have to negotiate with the white house in order to get the president's signature. so it's hard to pass legislation by design. but it shouldn't be this hard. with less than a year to go before the 2020 election, we're racing against the clock. we started this year with bipartisan ambitions to address health care costs, bolster international trade, and get the appropriations process back on track and avoid unnecessary government shutdowns.

but somewhere along the way, politics hijacked the process. our colleagues across the aisle decided that no matter how critical legislation may be, foiling president trump was even more important. they are so outraged by the president and so consumed by his every word and every tweet that they have brought the work of this body to a screeching halt in an effort to remove him from office less than a year before the next general election. it seems they have no desire whatsoever to pass legislation that would benefit the american people let alone any urgency to get things moving. the only thing our democratic colleagues seem to care about is stopping the president from getting anything that can be construed as a win. over in the house the democrats

have put legislating on the back burner and are spending their days trying to nullify the results of the 2016 election. they're slow walking negotiations on the national defense authorization act which is passed every year -- has passed every year without fail since 1961. their negotiations with the administration over the u.s.-canada--- mexico-canada agreement which is a successor to nafta which has helped benefit the employment of roughly 13 million americans, their negotiations have kept farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers in limbo for months. and they've complicated efforts to get a long-term highway bill reauthorization passed along with the necessary funding to help make up for the lack of funds in the highway trust fund.

despite the partisan frenzy in the house, i've always believed that the senate should do its best to stay above the fray, but the minority leader has proven me wrong. in fact, last week i came to the floor to ask unanimous consent to pass a bill that senator richard blumenthal of connecticut, a democrat, and i, a republican, introduced together. this bill incredibly has passed unanimously out of the judiciary committee and our legislation is designed to do what everybody here in washington says they want to do which is to reduce drug prices, in this case by stopping drug makers from gaming the patent system. our bill strikes a delicate balance of protecting innovation which is very, very important

and we must not lose sight of that. while increasing competition, and you know competition helps bring down prices and as an added bonus, it would lower federal spending by more than a half a billion dollars over ten years. that's not even talking about what it would do in the nongovernmental sector for savings. senator blumenthal did and i did what you're expected to do here in a legislative body, work hard to build consensus and come up with a bill that can gain bipartisan support. and by any measure, we have succeeded in doing that. it has a dozen bipartisan cosponsors. and when this legislation was reviewed by the judiciary committee, as i mentioned, a committee that notably can be pretty contentious at times, the committee passed unanimously, every republican, every democrat voted for it. i hope that was some indication

that this bill would quickly pass the full senate when brought up on the senate floor, but apparently the minority leader, the senator from new york, has other plans in mind. because when i came to the floor last week along with senator blumenthal to try to get this legislation passed, he objected. hence, the schumer graveyard. senator schumer said on november 18, 2019, when referring to the bill s. 1416, lowering drug prices, he said democrats are happy and eager to work on those issues. well, you know, one thing i've learned around here it's not just what people say, it's what they do that counts. and he objected to this virtually unanimously supported bill on a bipartisan basis to lower drug prices. he actually called it a good

bill. he said it was well intentioned. but he said there were other ideas that had to be included before he would lift his objection. so he doesn't have any objection to our bill. he understands it is a good bill but maybe not as comprehensive as what he would like. another thing i've learned in my time in the senate is if you've -- is if you demand everything or nothing, if you're not willing to compromise, you're going to end up with nothing. and that's what apparently the democratic leader is happy with, including for his constituents in new york, by the way, who will have to pay more money out of pocket as a result of his objection to this commonsense bill. i would hope that he would talk to his own members who have cosponsored this bill, most notably the democratic whip from illinois, senator durbin has

cosponsored the bill. senator murray from washington who is the ranking member on the health, education, labor, and pensions committee, they are both cosponsors of this bill that the democratic leader objected to. well, while every senator has said that they want to address rising drug prices, senator schumer has the distinction of being the only senator who's actually blocked a bill that would do exactly that. why would he do that? well, he claims i think mistakenly so that passing my bill would somehow render the senate incapable of passing any other drug pricing legislation. that's obviously ridiculous and untrue. i happen to sit not only on the judiciary committee but on the finance committee, and there is

a significant bipartisan finance committee bill together with the health, education, labor, and pensions committee bill which has been produced by senator alexander and senator murray. both of those contain many good ideas. and i wish we had the time and the bandwith to debate and vote on those on the senate floor and the house but for the fact our house colleagues are so obsessed with impeachment and seem incapable of doing anything else, i think we could do that. but of course even though the democratic leader himself is the reason why this bill did not pass last week, that hasn't stopped him from complaining about the lack of progress on other legislation. yesterday evening, for example, he came to the floor and he said democrats are happy and eager toe work on those issues. well, i would suggest -- to work

on those issues. well, i would suggest when he says they are happy and eager to work on those issues, that's just happy talk. that's not actually rolling up our sleeves and working together to get the work of the american people done which is the reason i thought we were here. the democratic leader went on to say, senate democrats are waiting with baited breath for the republican leader to put any of these bills on the floor, for any republican to speak out and demand they go on the floor. but when i asked for this bill to be passed on the floor, it wasn't a republican that blocked it. it was the same person that said they'd be happy and eager to work on those issues. again, what people say in washington, d.c. is not what they actually do sometimes, and i suggest it's important to see

what people do, not just listen to what they say. sadly this isn't the only time the democratic leader has blocked progress on bipartisan priorities. it's just the latest. well, here's some other tombstones in the schumer graveyard. over the summer our colleagues on the appropriations committee had the foresight to prepare for the funding fight that we expected this fall. that's a normal part of the process. they negotiated a spending caps agreement to make the appropriations process much more straightforward in both chambers of congress. the house and the senate approved the terms. we agreed to that top line funding for defense spending and nondefense spending both and there was a promise not to

derail the process with poison pills in the form of policy riders. and we got all of it done with plenty of time to spare. there was reason for hope and optimism after we voted on that that somehow we had made it much easier for us to do the nation's business when it came to the spending bills. while there was still a lot of work to do, we thought this put us on strong footing to get funding bills passed before the end of the fiscal year. but here we are today, november 19, a long time from those votes in august, and we still don't have those spending bills pass passed. our democratic colleagues have had on two instances actually objected to even debating the defense appropriation bill which provides a pay raise for our troops. they won't even talk about it. they won't offer amendments.

they just blocked it. they just stopped it dead in its tracks. well, you would have thought everybody had learned not to play politics with the appropriations bill. our democratic colleagues have held up government funding due to a disagreement equal to about .3%, .3% of the discretionary spending budget and are trying to reopen the very budget agreement that they agreed to last summer and which has become law. they blocked vital education funding which would have provided more than $71 billion to the department of education. this spending bill would bolster a number of the grant programs that our students and our schools rely on and promote college access and affordability to help more prospective college students. that same funding bill would have invested nearly $4 billion

in our fight against the opioid epidemic, supported workforce training programs, and strengthened our nationwide mental health system. could the majority leader put aside politics just long enough to let this funding bill that would do so much good pass? well, apparently not. but if you think that's bad, mr. president, it just gets worse. our most fundamental responsibility in congress is to provide for the common defense. before we can worry about anything else, we need the safety and security that our military provides to fight, if necessary, our nation's wars and to defend our democracy. actually the strength of our military is to directly -- is directly related to our ability

to live in peace. because when our adversaries see us tentative or weak or withdrawing or unwilling to fund our military training and readiness, they view that as a sign of weakness, which, itself, can be a provocation, which, again, ignores our most basic job as members of the congress. now, there's always been disagreements about exact dollar figures. we're not talking about that. but the top-line figures were agreed upon last summer, so i thought we were ready to fund our military on time. well, shame on me for being an optimist, or at least as optimistic enough to believe that people would keep their commitments or keep their word and we would somehow head down this path to funding the government. here we are with one continuing

resolution to expire in three days time. i believe the house will vote on an additional continuing resolution that will take us up to december 20 and then the senate will have to do that to keep the lights on in washington, d.c., to make sure that the government actually functions. none of this is necessary and all of it is directly related to hyper partisan conflict, which we all understand, but it is simply getting in the way of the ability to do our business. you know, the one that strikes me as the most indefensible beyond the prescription drug objection is blocking funding for our troops. you know, we depend on an all-volunteer military, and obviously many of our military members are not just single, they have families that depend on them and on the funding that

congress provides. but our colleagues blocked it two different times, again, voting against the motion to proceed to the bill, which in plain english is just saying they didn't even want to start talking about or amending the underlying bill, which each senator would have the opportunity to do if they would allow us to begin that process, which they blocked. well, the democratic leader loves to talk about the legislative graveyard here in the senate. what he really means is he wants to control the agenda even in a seat as the minority leader. well, he knows the rules of the senate don't permit the minority to control the agenda. that's why it's so important that senator mcconnell is where he is and that republicans have a majority. but we're not saying you have to do it our way or the highway.

we're saying let's engaging in the legislative process. let's take up legislation on the floor of the senate. let senators offer their amendments, their suggestions, and then let's vote on them. but let's not just stop things dead in their tracks because of partisan politics or because somebody doesn't want somebody who happens to be on the ballot in 2020 to, quote, get a win. that is really beneath the dignity of the senate or any senator. it's less than what the american people have a right to expect of us. so i would just ask the democratic leader, again, please don't head down this path by creating a graveyard of your own for bipartisan legislation that could and should become law. it's not my way or the highway. we have to work on this together

and we're willing to do our part. let's work on bills that strengthen our military, lower drug prices, help students, and assist in the fight against the opioid crisis, and so much, much more. so i think it's a shame that our democratic colleagues seem to be unable to compartmentalize their feelings about the president from the urgent need for them to do the jobs they were elected to do here in the congress. they've been given countless opportunities to engaging with us on a bipartisan basis to pass meaningful legislation that would make the american people's lives better. again, that's why -- that's why i think we're here. but they refuse to do anything that could be construed as giving somebody a victory because of political

considerations. while senator schumer continues to kill bipartisan bill after bipartisan bill, really because of it, the work of this congress has become paralyzed. mr. president, we're not going to give up though. we'll keep fighting to ensure that the american people are not the ultimate victims of our democratic colleagues' war against this president. again, less than a year before the election. why can't they channel all of their anger, all of that energy into the election rather than invoking the impeachment process, which would -- this would be the fourth time that that has been initiated in american history, and it has never been successful in getting a senate conviction and removal of any president in american history.

and our democratic colleagues know they are likely headed to the same conclusion here, and yet they want to occupy all of our time and all of our attention on something that they know will likely be futile, will be unsuccessful and in the meantime leave the american people on the sideline and not care or do anything that would help make their lives just a little bit easier. and our country just a little bit stronger. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate previous order, the senate the sin is dabbling out for their weekly party lunches. lawmakers would be back at 2:15 p.m. eastern to vote on judicial nominations for court

of appeals for the 11th circuit. when the senate gavels back and we will continue our live coverage at c-span2. on c-span3, live coverage of the house intelligence committee impeachment inquiry hearing against president trump if the committee is in the first of two hearings happening today. they started the hearing test my with national security council european affairs director lieutenant colonel alexander vindman who you see on the right of your screen and jennifer williams and a device president mike pence. they are expected to take a break for lunch and then reconvene at about 2:30 p.m. eastern. they will question kurt volker and ten ten morrison, national security council director for russia. live coverage on c-span3. also online at c-span.org. secretary of state mike pompeo talk about foreign affairs during a news conference st