Cloture Motion
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last few months, our friend and colleague, the minority leader, has railed about the lack of legislative progress here in the Senate. He believes the Senate should spend time taking up ultrapartisan bills that have passed the House of Representatives, but the truth is, we respectfully decline to take up those bills, which, in some instances, would infringe Americans' Constitutional rights, send taxpayer dollars to political candidates, and move us closer and closer to socialized medicine.
Now, our colleague likes to call these dead-on-arrival partisan bills part of the legislative graveyard, but our colleague from New York has opened up a graveyard of his own, only his isn't full of partisan legislation that could never pass the Senate, let alone become the law. No. Our friend--the Democratic leader's legislative graveyard exclusively caters to bipartisan bills.
Now, it is full of commonsense and critically important legislation that would actually make the lives of the American people better if only our friend from New York would stand down. Today, we had a chance to kick the can down the road once more when it comes to Federal funding because our colleagues across the aisle have put government funding bills 6 feet under.
Over the summer, as you will recall, we came to a bipartisan agreement on spending caps, a bicameral agreement to guide the appropriations process. We had a deal. It provided a roadmap for negotiations this fall, and we all promised to work hard and in good faith and stay away from poison pill policy riders. But, unfortunately, that promise was not kept, and our colleagues can't seem to put politics aside long enough to even fund the government.
And why? Because of a disagreement over .3 percent of Federal spending--0.3 percent. They have twice blocked vital funding for our military. They have blocked funding for mental health programs, for border security, for grant programs for schools--all over these petty disputes. So here we are, almost 2 months into the fiscal year, and we haven't sent a single appropriations bill to the President's desk, not one.
Well, with the government set to shut down at midnight tonight, at least we passed a bill to keep the trains running for 1 more month. Maybe this was the least bad choice we had in light of these broken promises. The stopgap funding bill carries through December 20 and provides another opportunity for our colleagues across the aisle to make good on their August commitments to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, using the normal appropriations process.
I hope that good faith negotiations can resume and we can fund the remainder of the fiscal year by Christmas because the last stocking stuffer we want to give the American people is another government shutdown. And it is particularly important for us to fund our military in an increasingly dangerous world where weakness is indeed a provocation for the bullies and authoritarians who want to take advantage of the lack of American leadership, in this case because Congress simply refuses to do its job to fund the military.
Well, I would be wrong to say it is all bad news. I am an optimist by nature. It reminds me of the story of the little boy who comes down Christmas morning and finds a pile of manure under the Christmas tree. He asked, ``Where is the pony?'' I am an optimist by nature. Yesterday, we did manage to make some small progress when we unanimously passed a bipartisan bill that I introduced with Mr. Merkley, the Senator from Oregon, to ban the sale of riot control material to the Hong Kong police force.
As freedom-seeking protesters on the other side of the globe risked life and limb for the freedoms we too often take for granted, we cannot condone police brutality. Admittedly, this is a small but important step to show we stand with the people of Hong Kong, but I find this ironic. The minority leader is fine with passing incremental bills to support the people of Hong Kong, but when it comes to passing incremental bills to support the American people, he objects.
I think the best example is the legislation that I have introduced to bring down prescription drug prices. Last week, I came to the Senate floor with my friend, colleague, and cosponsor, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, to ask that our bill to reduce drug prices be passed. No one else had an objection other than the Democratic leader.
The premise of the bill was pretty simple: prevent drugmakers from gaming the patent system to monopolize the market. Our bill strikes a delicate balance of protecting innovation while encouraging competition, and it would be a win for every American who has felt the pain or sticker shock at the pharmacy counter. This bill, amazingly, passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously. I served on the Judiciary Committee my entire time on the Senate, and it is famous for its contentiousness, and we passed it unanimously. Every Republican and every Democrat voted for it. So you can imagine my optimism, my hope, that the bill would sail through the Senate, meet up with welcoming arms in the House, and then get to the President for his signature, but I guess I should have known better.
Our Democratic colleagues have continued to throw up roadblocks for things as critical as funding the military, so why would they let this bill that would bring down prescription costs for consumers, why would they let it pass? So right on cue, the Democratic leader came to the floor and he objected. He was the only person out of 100 Senators to object. He did not object because of the substance.
As a matter of fact, he called it a well-intentioned and good bill, but he objected. He certainly did not object because it was a partisan bill. The bill has six Democratic cosponsors, including the minority whip, the Senator from Illinois, and the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Murray from Washington State.
So the only reason I can think of that he would object is because he doesn't want to see anyone whose name happened to be on the ballot in 2020 score a win. Well, how unworthy of the U.S. Senate is that sort of thinking? We should not be thinking in terms of who is going to win or lose politically if we pass good legislation. We ought to be doing the Nation's work and working together in a bipartisan basis, not trying to bring the 2020 election here to the Senate floor.
But this bill isn't the only one that is subject to these kinds of politics, unfortunately. Critical legislation to support victims of domestic violence and sexual assault have also gotten caught up in this way of thinking. After months of bipartisan negotiations to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, our Democratic colleagues simply walked away from the negotiating table. Rather than reaching a compromise, building consensus on a bill that could pass both Chambers and become law, once again, our Democratic colleagues chose the partisan path and walked away from the table. They have introduced a near replica of the partisan House-passed bill for VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act, which they know doesn't stand a chance of passing here in the Senate because it is not a consensus product.
That is not news to our friends on the other side of the aisle. They understand that this is more about the issue than it is solving the problem, the political issue. I think they turned their back on bipartisan talks, not because they had a better solution, which is what we ought to be about, but because our friend and Democratic leader doesn't want to give any Republican colleagues who are leading the negotiations, like the Senator from Iowa, Ms. Ernst, allow her to get a win.
This is really, again, unworthy of the Senate to think in those petty sorts of terms. I think we should concentrate on who would win if we passed the Violence Against Women Act, which would be the many victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. We ought to be thinking about them and whether they would win if we passed bipartisan legislation.
Now, I believe the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, wants to come back to the negotiating table. She told me that herself yesterday, but I also believe the Democratic leader probably isn't going to let that happen. Like me, Senator Ernst is on the ballot next year.
Again, the minority leader has demonstrated his focus on politics rather than substance and doing what actually will help the American people: no bills to lower drug prices, no bills to support victims of domestic violence, nada. He can't afford to let any Republican bills pass because it might just hurt his chances of becoming the majority leader after the 2020 election.
I think it is a shame that the partisanship in the House has now infected the Senate and prevented us from passing bills that would make the American people's lives better. I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle have a great Thanksgiving break, and I hope that he will use that time to reconsider why it is they are here in the first place, why we are all here.
We are all here to make the Senate work for the benefit of the American people and not to engage in these unworthy petty political games leading up to the 2020 election. United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement
Mr. President, on another matter, before election year politics completely halt the work of the Senate, here we are, 1 year before the election, one item I am really hoping we can deliver for the American people in addition to the ones I mentioned is the USMCA, the U.S.- Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement.
This trade agreement, as we know, will replace NAFTA, or the North American Free Trade Agreement, and help drive our trade relationship with Mexico and Canada into the 21st century. When you consider the number of American jobs that depend on trade with Mexico and Canada, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce cites a figure of 13 million jobs--13 million jobs that depend on that trade with Mexico and Canada.
When you consider actions being taken by China to counter our interests all around the world, our reliance on North American partners is becoming increasingly important. The USMCA is not only an opportunity to strengthen North America's position on the global stage, but it is important, as I suggested, to our economy right here in the United States.
Earlier this year, the International Trade Commission provided some insight into what we can expect to see if this trade agreement is ratified, as it should be. The USMCA is expected to have a positive impact on every sector of the U.S. economy. Within 6 years, we are looking at 176,000 new American jobs and an increase in American gross domestic product of more than $68 billion. That is bigger than the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement.
We can also look forward to more than a $33 billion increase in exports and more than $31 billion in imports. We know that many of those exports and imports travel across the border in Texas because we share 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico, and we have many ports of entry in our State.
In 2018 alone, Texas exported nearly $110 billion in goods to Mexico and imported more than $107 billion from Mexico. With the increased trade and travel we expect to see once the USMCA is ratified, we need to make sure that our ports of entry, through which these goods flow, are prepared. We have been working with the administration on this, and I have requested funding to prioritize Texas's ports and make sure they are safe and efficient.
I am also hoping the USMCA will include provisions from a bill I introduced earlier with another border State Senator, our friend Senator Feinstein from California. This would improve the North American Development Bank, sometimes called the NAD Bank, which invests in our border communities and particularly in the infrastructure.
For every one NAD Bank dollar that has been invested in a project, that successfully leveraged $20 in total infrastructure investment using public and private sector dollars.
Throughout NAD Bank's 25-year history, they have taken on projects that have improved air and water quality, updated infrastructure, and increased cross-border trade. NAD Bank brings Mexico and the United States together to finance these projects to improve trade and travel and quality of life on both sides of the border.
This legislation that Senator Feinstein and I have introduced would authorize the Treasury Department to increase its capital and provide additional authority to fund critical projects. I have been working with my friend and Democratic colleague from Laredo, TX, Congressman Cuellar, to make sure that these provisions are included in the final text of the USMCA. My hope is we will be able to take those provisions up as well as the entire agreement and ratify it soon, but it depends on Speaker Pelosi. Everybody is waiting for her to show the green light and for the House to act. I am concerned that as we get closer and closer into an election season, it is going to be harder and harder for the House to even pass this bipartisan trade deal.
I read today that she is not predicting they will even be able to get it done before the end of the year. I note that she made that comment roughly on the same day the House adjourned for 10 days. The House does not appear to be in any hurry, to be sure. In fact, they have dragged their feet for many months on something that is vitally important to our economy and job creation right here in the U.S.A.
Texans enjoy a strong trading relationship with our southern neighbor, and I am confident the USMCA will continue to propel that relationship forward as well as continue to grow our economy and create jobs and more opportunity for the American people.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source