John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, President Trump has been in office now for more than 9 months. He has laid out his agenda to cut punishing regulations, to grow the economy, and to help hard-working Americans. President Trump's administration has already taken important steps to roll back the regulatory rampage of the last 8 years. During the last administration, the Environmental Protection Agency issued harmful and punishing, overreaching regulations that hurt workers in my home State of Wyoming. According to the chamber of commerce, from 2008 to 2016, the EPA issued regulations that cost our economy over $60 billion each year-- significantly more than any other Federal agency. These rules had real- life impacts. The Obama administration's so-called Clean Power Plan would have closed powerplants and cost America jobs. We can have both clean air and a growing economy. We have proven it. My goal is to make American energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without raising costs on American families. President Trump shares that goal. That is why EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has led the charge in cutting redtape. The EPA has taken important steps to roll back the Clean Power Plan and other punishing EPA regulations. It is interesting. The annual cost of high-impact rules by agencies from 2008 to 2016--there were 13 rules by the EPA--in the red right here, billions and billions and billions--over $60 billion. Administrator Pruitt needs his full leadership team in place at the Agency to complete the task, so today the Senate is going to vote on cloture so we can consider the nomination of Bill Wehrum. He has been nominated to serve as EPA's Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation. Mr. Wehrum has more than three decades of experience in environmental policy. He has worked as an environmental engineer, a public servant at the EPA, and is an environmental lawyer. His time at the EPA includes 2 years of service as the Acting Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation--the same office he has now been nominated to lead. EPA's Office of Air and Radiation is critically important in terms of a division within the Agency. It develops national programs, policies, and regulations for limiting air pollution and radiation exposure. One of the responsibilities of this office is implementing the Clean Air Act, and it is a big job. Here is a chart. Most EPA regulatory burdens come from EPA air regulations; 94.5 percent from the Office of Air and Radiation regulatory burden in 2014; only 5.5 percent from all other EPA offices' regulatory burden of that same year. So under the Obama administration, the air office was one of the biggest regulatory abusers. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the EPA's air regulations were responsible for 95 percent of the cost of the Agency's regulations. Now Mr. Wehrum is going to play a key role in undoing this redtape. The American people need a qualified leader in the EPA air office. Bill Wehrum is the right man for the job. Don't take my word for it; former environmental Obama Justice official John Cruden said this of Mr. Wehrum: ``I believe he is committed to achieving clean air for all citizens and carefully following sound and current science.'' Marcus Peacock, an EPA Deputy Administrator during the Bush administration, praised Mr. Wehrum, saying that his ``understanding of the Clean Air Act may be second to none. His desire to pull up his sleeves and actually make the Clean Air Act work as a practical matter is second to none.'' Mr. Wehrum's expertise and experience will be tremendously helpful as he pursues policies that will protect America's air, undo regulatory overreach, and allow our economy to grow. I urge all Senators to vote for cloture on Mr. Wehrum's nomination. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, Mr. Wehrum has been nominated to serve as the EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation. He has more than three decades of experience in environmental policy. He has worked as an environmental engineer. He has been a public servant at the EPA as an environmental lawyer. His time at the EPA includes years of service as the Acting Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation, the same office to which he has now been nominated.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, 1 year ago, the American people went to the polls. The American people demanded a change. They demanded a change from 8 years of too little economic growth and too much government control and regulations. The effect was immediate, and the effect was incredible. In the past year, we have gotten a lot of very good news about the American economy. Right after the election, businesses became much more optimistic about the direction of our country and they started hiring. Last Friday, we learned that in the United States we have created more than 2 million jobs since election day 2016. Someone said to me: Well, you shouldn't count it from election day. You should count it from Inauguration Day. Certainly, in my home State of Wyoming, on election day there was a confidence, an optimism, a positive feeling that started just at the moment it was announced that Donald Trump had been elected President of the United States. Right now we have the lowest rate of unemployment since the year 2002. We have seen the economy grow at more than 3 percent for the past 2 quarters. Consumer confidence just reached the highest level in almost 17 years. All of this is happening since President Trump was elected, and this is very good news for America. We can't stop now. We have to do all we can to keep on this path toward a more prosperous country. Americans are optimistic because they know that President Trump is focused on easing the regulations that have held back our economy for the last 8 years. We know that government can create opportunity or crush opportunity based on a combination of regulations, mandates, and taxes. We are now in the land of opportunity, eliminating the regulations and pulling back on taxes to helping our economy grow. The President has signed legislation that we passed in this Congress repealing one after another of the Obama administration's rules, regulations, and restrictions. President Trump has issued Executive orders cutting back on excessive redtape. President Trump has appointed very good people to important jobs who are committed to reining in Washington's out-of-control bureaucracy. All of these things are important and critical to keeping our economy growing. Another big part is what we are trying to do now in terms of cutting taxes for the American people. People want to keep more of their hard- earned money in their own pockets. Here in the Senate we now have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to cut taxes in a way that will actually help American families. We can help families directly by raising their incomes, and we can help them indirectly by growing the economy. Here is how we can do both, because that needs to be our goal. The first thing we can do is to give people a raise by doubling the standard deduction. If we raise the deduction, people keep more of their hard-earned money, and it makes taxes simpler. Right now, the standard deduction for a married couple is $12,000. Two-thirds of Americans take this deduction. If we roughly double it, people will not pay any Federal income tax at all on the first $24,000 they earn. That is a big cut. It means that a lot more people will decide to take this deduction instead of having to go through the painstaking process of itemizing their deductions on their tax return. It saves them a lot of time, it saves them a lot of headaches, and it saves them the cost of accountants and lawyers who have to help figure out the very complicated tax system in this country. Millions of families will be better off just from this one tax cut alone. A second thing Republicans are looking to do is to reduce the tax rate for small businesses, the people who are creating jobs all across the country. If someone owns a small business in my home State of Wyoming, she probably ends up paying the taxes on her personal tax return rather than on a separate business tax return. If we cut her tax bill, that is money she can then use to give her workers a raise, to hire more people, and to create more jobs in our community. She can put money back into the business to help grow the economy as well. When you leave more money in people's pockets, they get to decide how to use that money--what they decide to spend, what they decide to save, and what they decide to invest. People are much better watching their own money than the government ever was, giving people value for that money. So we want to make sure that tax reform includes a break for small businesses. Around here, they use the words ``tax reform.'' To me, it is about tax reduction, tax relief, and tax cuts. Republicans also want to bring down the rates that Washington charges other businesses. If we can cut the rate businesses pay from 35 percent down to 20 percent, that could be an enormous boost to the economy. Economists who look at this say it is like giving the average American family a $4,000 a year raise. That is how much the average household's income would go up, because workers actually bear most of the burden of taxes that businesses pay. Now, Democrats actually think the money belongs to Washington. It doesn't. It belongs to the people at home who earn it. Democrats often think that if you give Americans even a single dollar in tax cuts, you are taking away Washington's money. It is not Washington's money. The money belongs to the people at home. We know the exact opposite of what the Democrats believe to be true. Republicans know that giving Americans a tax cut is the same as giving them a raise. Every dollar a family doesn't have to send to Washington in taxes is a dollar they can use for something better. It is a dollar they can use for food, for shelter, for kids, for education, for things that matter to their family. It is another dollar a small business can use to pay its workers more or reinvest in the business to help grow the economy in that community. Tax cuts mean that people decide how to spend their own money; Washington doesn't decide. Families know how to use money much better than Washington ever will. As we debate these issues and ideas with regard to tax relief, we have an exciting opportunity to give the American people a raise and to give the American economy a boost. This is something a lot of people have been working on for a long time in the Senate. Over the past 6 years, the Finance Committee has held 70 hearings on how to make our Tax Code better for all Americans. Republicans are working, and we are listening to make sure that we get the tax reform right that the American people and families need. When it comes to tax cuts, I believe the more the better. The more people who get a tax cut, the better. The more we grow our economy, the better. It is our job. It is about paychecks. It is about jobs. It is about prosperity. It is about a strong and healthy economy for America. That is what we as Republicans are committed to. We cannot let this opportunity pass. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Susie McMurry. On November 10, 2017, the Greater Wyoming Council of the Boy Scouts of America will hold their annual ``Strength of America Banquet'' and celebrate Susie McMurry, a remarkable Wyoming philanthropist. Every year at this event, the council honors an individual who made invaluable contributions to the community and demonstrates the values of the Scout oath and law. Susie McMurry is a perfect choice to receive this special recognition. She is a role model in our community and truly represents a spirit of citizenship, leadership, and service. Throughout her life, Susie has always demonstrated an enduring devotion to God, her family, and Wyoming. She loves her family. She loves her home State of Wyoming. She loves her country. She truly exemplifies the Scout promise ``to help other people at all times.'' Should an opportunity arise to improve the life of a child, Susie is the first to offer her assistance, time, and resources. Susie strongly supports programs for children that focus on mentoring, developing leadership skills, encouraging community service, and building self-esteem. She believes ``Children are the sunshine in our lives. If we don't take care of our children, our world will be without sunshine.'' Her parents raised her with a deep understanding of the importance of giving back. While growing up, her parents always lent a helping hand and opened their homes to individuals in need. Throughout her life, she has tried to follow their example. For nearly 30 years, she and her husband, Mick McMurry, were foster parents. They provided a safe and caring home for hundreds of children in Wyoming. Susie is a strong, compassionate, and caring woman. In 1946, she was born in Casper at Memorial Hospital of Natrona County. She called both Elk Mountain and Hanna home before eventually moving to Casper. Susie discovered her calling to help children early in life. She studied elementary education at Casper College and the University of Wyoming. After graduation, she returned to Casper and taught first grade at Crest Hill Elementary School. She met her husband of 41 years, Mick McMurry, in Casper. On December 21, 1973, Susie and Mick McMurry were married in Glenrock, WY. A few years later, they adopted their daughter, Trudi, and Susie retired from teaching. In 1979, Susie and Mick became foster parents. Their second daughter, Jillian, was adopted from the foster program. Susie has eight grandchildren: Lou Davis, Tayla Davis, Tillie Holthouse, Ellie Holthouse, Evie Kaschmitter, Lily Kaschmitter, Max Kaschmitter, and Andrew Kaschmitter. She also has one great-grandchild, Neil Campbell. In 2015, Susie, the McMurry family, Casper, and the State of Wyoming mourned the loss of her husband, Mick. Susie's compassion and strength continues to guide her family and our community. The McMurry family has a remarkable history of helping people across the State of Wyoming. Susie explained, ``One of our goals is to teach the younger generation how to give back, how to participate, and love making a difference.'' Mick and Susie established the McMurry Foundation in 1998 with a mission to make a significant and beneficial impact on the lives of others. Guided by the values of excellence and compassion, the foundation has awarded more than $50 million since it was established. It focuses on education, religion, children and advocacy for children, health and human resources, the arts and humanities, and favorable business environments. Buildings across the State bear the McMurry name as a mark of gratitude for their wonderful support. The number of places in Wyoming that have benefited from the contributions of the McMurry family is incredible, but one organization especially dear to Susie is the Wyoming Medical Center. Susie has spent a tremendous number of hours volunteering her time and talents to the benefit of everyone who comes through the doors. She feels that the health of a community is directly tied to the health of its people. The values that Susie and the McMurry Foundation promote go hand in hand with the mission of the Boy Scouts of America. They both work to ensure youth have the knowledge and skills needed to become future leaders of Wyoming. Their continued focus on education, leadership, and community service will serve these young people and our State for generations. Susie's kindness, generosity, and grace are true reflections of her character. She believes that fulfillment in life comes from making a difference in the lives of others. Whether it is volunteering at the Wyoming Medical Center to support patients and families or raising funds for the Boys and Girls Club of Central Wyoming, she has made a huge difference in the lives of so many people. Susie continues to have a positive and lasting mark on our community. It is with great honor that I recognize this exceptional member of our Wyoming community. My wife, Bobbi, joins me in extending our congratulations to Susie McMurry for receiving this honorable distinction.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this week the Senate is moving through a series of votes to fill vacancies in the Federal appeals court. President Trump has nominated highly qualified, mainstream judges and legal scholars to do these jobs. Now, Democrats have responded once again with delay and with obstruction. It is clear to me that we need to change the rules in the Senate that govern how we debate nominations in this body. All year Democrats have been putting up roadblocks to nominations. They have forced the majority leader to file cloture so that then we can confirm nominees like these four judges. As of last Friday, Democrats have forced the Senate to file cloture 47 different times when we have had to have cloture votes on President Trump's nominees. There were only six cloture votes at this point for the previous four Presidents--five for Obama, none for George W. Bush, one for Bill Clinton, and none under the Presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush. These are the kind of hoops that the Democrats have been making the Senate jump through in an effort to confirm President Trump's nominees. The procedure has been set in place to allow for debate. Well, debate is a good thing in the Senate, as long as debate is actually occurring. It is a chance for Senators to stand up, to say what they like or what they don't like about a nominee. Now, if no one wants to debate, we should just move things along and have the vote. There is one Senate rule that allows for as much as 30 hours of debate time on Presidential nominations after we have actually had the cloture vote. Now, in reality, very little of that time that is spent on the Senate floor is actually being used for the debate. In the past, both sides would agree to waive the time requirements and to move on to other Senate business, which is what we need to do to get the country continuing to move forward. But what is happening now is that Democrats are insisting on cloture votes, and then they are insisting that we use hour after hour after hour, even when there is no one here to debate what is the issue or the person in front of us. It is time to end this pointless spectacle. The Senate used to be called the world's greatest deliberative body. Democrats have turned it into the world's most paralyzed deliberative body. We have more than 125 nominees for various jobs who have had hearings in committee, who have testified in committee, who have been voted on in committee, who have cleared through the entire committee-vetting process and are now waiting for a vote on the Senate floor--125 of them. Most of these people have bipartisan support. They will be confirmed easily and eventually. They should be confirmed immediately. There should be no reason for Democrats' stalling tactics except, once again, to slow down the pace of other progress in the Senate on legislative issues. Mr. President, look at what happened with one judge last week. It is a case you are very familiar with. Scott Palk was nominated by President Trump to serve on the U.S. district court. He had bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. He went to the committee, had a hearing in the committee, and with bipartisan support was voted out of the committee. That was in June--more than 4 months ago. Now, apparently that is not good enough for the Democrats--not at all. They are only interested in slowing down the work of the Senate. So we had a cloture vote on the nominee. It was 1 of the 47 cloture votes that we talked about. We had to have a cloture vote. Every Republican and 27 Democrats voted for him. So he had bipartisan support. We still had to allow all of this wasted time for the debate. We couldn't conduct any of the other business of the Senate during the time because the Democrats insisted that we use all of the debate time. Now, they could have very easily agreed to waive the rules, as we do, and go straight to a vote. We wanted to do that. The Democrats refused. So how much of that time--those 30 hours--did the Democrats actually spend on the floor debating this person's qualifications to be a Federal judge? How many of those 30 hours did the Democrats use? None. How many minutes did they use? None. Not one Democrat came to the floor of the Senate to talk about that judge. Not a single Democrat even bothered to say a word against his nomination. There were fewer than 20 minutes of total talk on the floor of the Senate. Through hour after hour after hour of ongoing time, there were fewer than 20 minutes spent actually talking about the judge, and it was all spent in praise by the Republicans. We still had to run out the clock because that is the delay game the Democrats are playing in the Senate. The Senate had to waste hours and hours when we could have finished debating in less than 20 minutes. The Democrats have done this same thing time after time after time, day after day, wasting day after day. Things take time in the Senate. We understand that. That is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they formed the two bodies of Congress, the House and the Senate. There is no excuse, though, for Democrats abusing the process to make things take even longer. Democrats aren't using the rules for debate. They are not using the rules for deliberation. It is only for delay. It hasn't always been this way, and there is no reason it should continue to be this way. The Senate had a different standard for nominations a few years ago, and that was in the 113th Congress. In years 2013 and 2014, the Senate allowed just 2 hours of debate after cloture was invoked on nominations for district court judges. That is 2 hours more than the Democrats actually spent debating this judge's nomination last week. The rules said that we would have up to 8 hours to debate executive branch nominations below the Cabinet level. Then, for Cabinet Secretaries, for Justices on the Supreme Court, and for circuit courts, it was the full 30 hours of debate. Thirty hours now is what we allow every nomination today, and Democrats have shown that in most cases it is far too much time because even though we have to spend all the time, they use very little of it talking about the nominees. We need a fair debate on every nomination. The procedure from 2013 and 2014, with fair debate on nominations, is one that was fair. The way the Democrats are wasting time today to keep us from doing our work is not fair. I believe it is time to return to the rules for debating nominees that the Senate used 3 years ago. There will still be plenty of time for Senators to debate the nominees, to raise objections if there are any. Every Senator could be on the record. There are just a lot of hours that we could avoid that are being wasted today that could be used to do the people's business of this country. A President's nominations of qualified people to important jobs was never meant to be a tool for delay in the Senate or to be an obstruction the way the Democrats have been using it. Now, these rules that we used in 2013 and 2014 were the result of a compromise. Democrats controlled the Senate at the time. A Democrat, Barack Obama, was in the White House making the nominations, and Republicans agreed to make these changes to the rules. It was part of a bipartisan group, and I was part of that group. There were eight Senators. They worked on this compromise--four Republicans and four Democrats. Senator McCain and Senator Alexander were part of this group. Senator Schumer, who is now the Democrat leader, was part of this group. There was overwhelming support for these changes on both sides of the aisle. It is time to do it again. Let's change the Senate rules and go back to the process that Senator Schumer supported in 2013 and 2014. Today, the schedule allows us to do one or two nominations in a typical week. If we go back to the 2014 standard, we could clear multiple nominations in a day. The Republican Senate has been busy this year, and we have made progress on behalf of the American people. We have passed 15 resolutions rolling back destructive, Obama-era regulations using the Congressional Review Act and signed into law by the President. We passed a budget that will help give Americans at home a raise by cutting their taxes and giving us an opportunity to do the kind of tax relief, tax reform, tax reductions, tax cuts that the American people are looking for. We need to do more. It is time for Democrats to stop abusing the rules just to delay the process. It is time to go back to the previous standard of debating nominations. It is time to pick up the pace and do the job the American people expect us to do. Now, if Democrats have a different approach and don't want to accept the standard of debate that was set in the previous Congress, then I believe it is time for us to force that change. If Democrats maintain their lockstep opposition to real progress on judicial vacancies and other nominees, we should give them a chance to vote on their continued obstruction. We can vote on these nominees in a straightforward and efficient way or we can vote to return to the precedent of the 113th Congress. That is the choice. Either way, it is time to vote. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, President Trump has been in office now for more than 9 months. For this entire time, Senate Democrats have been trying to obstruct him from doing the very job that he was elected by the American people to do. The President has laid out his agenda to create jobs, to grow the economy, and to help hard-working American taxpayers. Yet Democrats will do everything they can to stop the President from putting his team in place to accomplish these goals. They have tried to stop the President's legislative agenda because they know that his policies will actually work. When Republican policies become law, Democrats know that the people will see how successful these Republican policies are. I think Democrats are worried that they may never win another election again once we get these policies into place. That is why we have seen a record number of delays and obstructions by the Democrats in the Senate. They have done it on legislation, and they have even blocked the President from filling some of the most basic jobs within his administration. It started on day one. Normally, on Inauguration Day, the President gets a substantial number of people confirmed to his Cabinet. The idea is to let the President get his team in place so that it can hit the ground running. President Obama had six of his Cabinet Secretaries confirmed on Inauguration Day, and President Bush had seven Secretaries confirmed on Inauguration Day. These confirmations were by voice vote, but that was not the case with President Trump--just two with rollcall votes on Inauguration Day. Republicans in the Senate did not do anything to try to block the Cabinet Secretaries for President Obama, for we understood that it was best to give a new President a chance and for all of us to work together when we could. With George W. Bush, it was seven. That is how it usually works, but not anymore--no, not with this group of Democrats in the Senate. They really were never interested in giving President Trump a chance. They really do not seem to be working together. Last January, President Trump had two people confirmed to the Cabinet on Inauguration Day--the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security. They were the only two jobs that the Democrats allowed the President to fill. In President Trump's first 9 months in office, Democrats have continued to block the way. They have allowed just 185 of his nominees to take their jobs. That is how ridiculous the Democrats have been in trying to keep President Trump from putting his team in place. By this far into the administration at the same time, President Obama had 364 nominees in place. The Democrats have blocked judges, Cabinet Secretaries, and other high-ranking officials. Now, it is interesting because you have seen this. Many of these nominees even have Democrat support, and they are not controversial at all, but Democrats are doing everything they can to slow down the process. During President Obama's first 9 months, he had 364 confirmed. So President Obama had gotten 2 for every 1 that President Trump has gotten confirmed. There are 81 of President Trump's nominees who have gone through the committees and another some number today. They are 81 people who have been nominated by the President for positions in the government who are just waiting right now for a vote on the Senate floor. Many of these people got through the nomination process in June but are still waiting and being blocked by Democrats in the Senate. It is outrageous. Do Democrats really think that these are not important jobs--that they do not need people in those jobs to do the important work that they have been assigned to do? I believe that we should confirm as many of them as possible today. There are 13 judges waiting for confirmation. There are 8 U.S. attorneys waiting, including the U.S. attorney from my home State of Wyoming. These are important jobs. We all understand that there is a process that we need to go through to fill these positions--to make sure the people are vetted and to make sure they are the right people for the jobs. All of these people have followed the process. They have been doing everything they have been asked to do in that they have filled out the paperwork, filled out the disclosures, and have gone through the committees. Now it is time for the Senate to get its work done. I would say let's do it today. Interestingly enough, in August, the Democrats finally allowed a significant number of people to be confirmed. More than 60 people were confirmed by voice vote on one day. That is the kind of thing that used to be very routine in the Senate--letting a large number of noncontroversial nominees be approved all at once. It is now time to do it again. There is a significant backlog. So I want to get these folks confirmed now. It is time to clear the deck and let these people get to work who have been nominated and vetted, who have gone through the committees and been approved. We need to move these nominations because we have more nominations on the way. We are going to have to deal with the nominations of two Cabinet Secretaries for positions that are currently vacant. President Trump has nominated Kirstjen Nielsen to be Secretary of Homeland Security. It is an important job, and she is very qualified for it. Do the Democrats plan to block her confirmation to be Secretary of Homeland Security? Do the Democrats plan to obstruct this qualified woman from doing the important job she has been nominated by President Trump to do? The President deserves to have his team in place. The Senate has an obligation to get that work done. The Department of Homeland Security deserves to have a Secretary in place to keep us safe. That is how it has worked in the past and how it should be working now. These people manage major Departments of the government. They manage many career workers. We know that the Washington bureaucracy has grown tremendously over the years and that it is very difficult to eliminate people who aren't doing their jobs properly. We have seen it in the scandals over the years. Remember the Gold King Mine disaster? President Obama's EPA--the group who is supposed to protect the environment--actually dumped 3 million gallons of toxic wastewater in a river in Colorado. Remember the scandals involving bureaucrats in the Department of Veterans Affairs, the IRS, and the General Services Administration during the Obama administration? We need Presidential appointees in place overseeing these Federal workers to make sure that the government of the people is accountable to the American people. The Senate needs to be involved in providing oversight through our power of advice and consent. Democrats don't want that to happen. They have been keeping the Senate from providing that oversight, dragging out the process, making sure that the bureaucrats whom they seem to have more faith in are accountable to the American people rather than those whom the American people voted for on election day. These are important jobs, and we have qualified people ready to do the work. Democrats have delayed for 9 months. It is time to break that logjam today. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, last week, the Trump administration took a very important step, the step to end the war on coal and the war on American energy. The Environmental Protection Agency has said that it has begun the formal process to roll back the Obama administration's so-called Clean Power Plan. This plan was a cornerstone of the Democratic efforts to destroy the reliable forms of energy that the American public continues to use today. My goal is to make energy as clean as we can as fast as we can without raising costs on American families. The Trump administration wants exactly the same thing. The steps it announced last week will help provide greater energy security, more jobs, and a stronger economy. This is exactly what President Trump promised he would do. It is exactly what the American people voted for last November. Americans said that they were tired of Washington's out-of-control regulators. President Trump took action right away. He issued an Executive order in March, telling his administration to go back and review some of President Obama's worst energy regulations. One of those was the Clean Power Plan, which tried to regulate powerplants in a way that wasn't even allowed under the Clean Air Act. President Trump's Executive order was the first step in correcting this bureaucratic overreach. Last week's announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency was the next step. With this move, the Agency is saying that Washington will no longer trample on the law. It tells the rest of Washington that there are limits. So I applaud President Trump and Scott Pruitt, the Administrator of the EPA. The Agency was created because America needed to do a better job of making sure we had clean air, clean land, and clean water. There is a right way to do this job. For a long time, the Agency did its job well. We can strike and need to strike the right balance. We need to do that again so we can protect our environment while allowing our economy to grow. We can have reasonable regulations that protect Americans while also respecting the law. My home State of Wyoming is one of the most pristine, beautiful places in the world, and it is one of the most energy-rich places in the world. Wyoming has struck this balance successfully, and so have many other States. We are addressing threats to our environment through the cooperation of States, towns, Indian Tribes, and Washington. The Environmental Protection Agency did not get the balance right with its Clean Power Plan. It overstepped its bounds to fulfill a political agenda. In 2008, when Barack Obama was running for President, he said that under his policies, ``If somebody wants to build a coal- fired power plant, they can.'' But he went on to say, ``It's just that it will bankrupt them.'' Bankrupt them. Once he got into office, he did everything he could to keep that promise and to bankrupt as many coal companies as possible. The Obama administration pushed out unnecessary, unlawful regulations on coal producers, powerplants, and their customers. Look at the difference between the two Presidents. President Obama promised to bankrupt American energy producers, and then he misused his power in order to do it. President Trump promised to promote American energy security and economic growth, and he is following the law to do that. The law never gave the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to write its Clean Power Plan. The Agency went ahead and did it anyway. That is why States sued the Federal Government to block this destructive bureaucratic overreach. States knew--people knew that the Environmental Protection Agency had written a dangerous regulation that would shut down American powerplants and would raise energy costs for American families. Their rule would have thrown thousands of people out of work in Wyoming and in other States. It would have led to as much as $33 billion in compliance costs in the year 2030. That is what the Agency estimated--$33 billion in compliance costs. Last year, the Supreme Court decided that this rule could do so much damage that the Court stopped President Obama in his tracks. Last week, the Agency recognized that there is a better way. It is going through the process to set aside the old rule and take a fresh look at what it could or should do legally. It said that any regulation of these powerplants is going to be done the way every new regulation should be done. That means listening to the people who have the most at stake, like the States and communities affected by these regulations. It is especially true in places like Wyoming, where there are already partnerships in place that could accomplish many of the goals of the new rules. It means that Washington should consider the costs as well as the benefits of regulation, and it should use reasonable estimates about both the costs and the benefits. In 2015, the Supreme Court criticized the Obama administration for another rule that made this same mistake. The Court said that it is not ``rational, never mind appropriate, to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.'' If Washington is going to write regulations the way they should be done, this means acting rationally, and it means following the law. The Clean Air Act didn't give the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to write its so-called Clean Power Plan. That should have stopped the regulators right there and then. It should not have been a sign for regulators to interpret the law in a brandnew way that Congress never intended. That is what the Obama administration did anyway. If Washington does regulations right, that means doing them in a way that provides clarity, not confusion, not more questions. It means doing what is best for America, not just what is the preference of the people writing the regulations. We are blessed in this country with enormous natural resources. Our goal should be to use these resources responsibly, in ways that protect our environment and help to make our economy grow. We need a strong economy. That is what the American people are looking for. Over the 8 years of the Obama administration, the leaders of the EPA created broad and legally questionable new regulations. They declared a war on coal, and a war on American energy. Under the Trump administration, the war is over, and America is back on the right track. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the Gingrich nomination, the motion to consider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the Trachtenberg nomination.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the St. Anthony Tri-Parish Catholic School Foundation's 2017 honorees, Donald Galles and Rita (Murphy) Galles. The foundation supports the wonderful work of the St. Anthony Tri- Parish Catholic School. The school is dedicated to achieving academic excellence in a faith-filled community and living a life committed to Christian service. Since 1927, the school and staff have provided a high standard of academic achievement and Christian values. The school provides strong religious and educational leadership to the Casper community. On October 12, 2017, the foundation will be hosting the sixth annual Joy Breakfast and celebrating the school's 90th anniversary, nearly a century of educating students. Every year at this event, the foundation honors individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the school and exemplify the values of the Catholic community. Don Galles and Rita (Murphy) Galles are perfect for this honor. Both the Galles family and the Murphy family have a long history of supporting Catholic education and serving as role models to our community. John and Mari Ann Martin, Susie and the late Mick McMurry, and Joe Scott will also be recognized at the breakfast for their invaluable contribution and dedication to the St. Anthony's Tri-Parish Catholic School Foundation. Rita is a caring nurse and dedicated mother. As a native to Casper, WY, she attended St. Anthony's Parochial School and graduated from Natrona County High School in 1947. Rita then attended the St. Joseph's School of Nursing in Denver, CO, and started her nursing career. As a nurse, she touched so many lives by caring for the sick and injured. While in Denver, she married Dr. Joseph Murphy at the Blessed Sacrament Church on November 24, 1953. They were married for 51 years and had 12 children: Patrick, Mary Ann, Donald, Kevin, Mark, Sheila, Michelle, Rita, Kathleen, Maureen, Robert, and Anne. Rita enrolled all 12 of her children in St. Anthony's in order to ensure they received an excellent academic and religious foundation. With this strong background, her children have collectively spent more than 75 years in post-high school education. Donald is a decorated veteran, accomplished businessman, and loving family man. Like Rita, he is a native of Casper, WY, and attended both St. Anthony's Parochial School and Natrona County High School. After high school, Don joined the U.S. Army's 100th Infantry Division in France. He proudly fought for our country on the front lines during World War II. Don was seriously wounded while fighting in France. For his brave service to our Nation, Don was awarded the Silver Star, the Nation's third-highest award for valor. He also received a Bronze Star, Purple Heart, and Combat Infantry Badge. After the war, Don attended and graduated from Creighton University in Nebraska. It is there that he met Ann Christensen, who later became his wife for 55 years. They returned to Casper and raised six children: Tom, David, Dona, Laura, Karla, and Jeff. Many of their children attended St. Anthony's. In Casper, Don had a successful career as a partner with a local oil and gas firm. He is also active in the community as a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, the Knights of Columbus, and a lifelong member of St. Anthony's Catholic Church. The Galles and Murphy families were joined together in 2005. In the presence of their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, Don and Rita were married at St. Anthony's Catholic Church on December 29, 2005. As the place where they first met as children, the church holds great memories and a deep personal connection for them both. Over the years, Don and Rita have generously contributed their time and resources to both the church and school. They have also given back to our community in numerous other ways. For example, Don and Rita made an essential donation to purchase land and a building to expand the Casper Seton House, which assists homeless mothers and children. Their kindness, devotion, and generosity are true reflections of their character and the values they have passed along to their family. It is with great honor that I recognize these outstanding members of our Wyoming community. My wife, Bobbi, joins me in extending our congratulations to Donald and Rita Galles for receiving this special award.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it is always such a privilege to come to the floor and hear Senator Isakson, of Georgia, speak, as he speaks so eloquently. He comes here and makes perfect points. He was talking about the tax system looking to the future. What we have is a tax system that looks backward, regrettably. A number of years ago, we had a Treasury Secretary named Bill Simon, who said: ``The Nation should have a tax code that looks like someone designed it on purpose.'' That is what we are trying to do now--have a Tax Code that looks like it was designed on purpose. The person who really understood this was Ronald Reagan. As we take a look at tax proposals, it is not about taxes; it is about much more-- about a better life for the American people. Ronald Reagan said that tax reform is the door to a bigger future and, I would add, to a brighter future. He said it was the door to a future as big and hopeful and full of heart as the American dream. That is what we are talking about here today, a bright, big future, as big and bright as the American dream. That is what we are aiming at with this plan, a big and hopeful future for all Americans. It all starts with increasing the amount of money Americans get to keep in their pockets as a result of their hard-earned paycheck dollars. That is the most important thing. That is what families are concerned about. That is what I hear about every weekend in Wyoming. Under the outline the Republicans have proposed, every working man and woman in this country will be better off. That is our goal, to make everyone better off and to make the country better off, more prosperous, with a strong, healthy economy. That is what we are hearing about today on the floor and what we heard about from the Senator from Georgia. When we cut the amount of money people have to pay in taxes, it is essentially like giving them a raise. That is what this is about, giving people a raise. We want working people to keep more of their hard-earned money. One of the ways you can do that, which is very popular, is by doubling the standard deduction. It is easy math to do. The current standard deduction is around $12,000 for a couple who files jointly. The Republican proposal doubles it to $24,000. That means the first $24,000 of a couple's income will not be taxed at all. Beyond that, we are going to reduce the number of tax brackets. People will like that. It is so complicated, the system we have now. We will move people into lower brackets. Isn't that what we are trying to do? Yes, it is. If you used to be in a bracket and paid 25 percent, there is a pretty good chance that a significant amount of your income is going to be moved down to the 12-percent range. For most people, that is like getting a big raise when they take a look at their paychecks at the end of the week. That is what Republican tax relief looks like. The second thing we want to do is to actually make it a lot simpler. We talked about lowering the number of brackets, making it simpler for everyone who does their taxes. The instructions you get now from the IRS for the 1040 tax form are 106-pages long, and that is if you just limit yourself to the instructions. Remember that there are 15 different worksheets to fill out just so you can fill out your 1040 form. When more people take the standard deduction, they can save a lot of time and not have to go to the 15 worksheets and the 106 pages of instructions. They get that standard deduction, which has now doubled, making it a lot easier, with a lot less time having to be spent on taxes. What else are we going to do? We want to cut out a lot of the loopholes and complicated rules so most people will be able to just fill out a form on a single page. Think of the hours that is going to save families--the millions and millions of hours--when you multiply it across the country. Plus, think of the stress people will not have to be living under in their wondering if they actually followed the instructions properly. When you call the IRS help line, you get different answers from different people with whom you talk. It is hard to get a single answer because the complicated system makes it hard to get the answer right. So you end up with the expense of hiring lawyers, tax accountants, and people who can help you navigate a complicated system. People are looking for simpler lives, more free time, and more money of their own they can keep, not complicated government forms so the government takes more of their money. There is a lot of room for us to improve the simplicity of the tax system and the actual challenges that come from filling out the forms. The third thing we want to do with the plan, of course, is to get the economy growing faster so it is a strong and healthy economy, with more prosperity and higher take-home pay in the paychecks. With that, you will actually get an economy that creates more jobs and has more people working, which is a big part of tax reform. It is a direct benefit for American families. When you cut taxes on small businesses, they can afford to hire more people or they can use the extra money to pay their workers more. There is a lot that can be done to reach that level of prosperity--in individual paychecks as well as in having more people in the workforce. Under the outline the Republicans released last week, the top rate for most small businesses is going to drop from almost 40 percent down to 25 percent, allowing the businesses to pass on those savings to their customers and the savings to their employees. Larger businesses are going to get a tax break too. The idea is to lower taxes for everyone. When you take a look at it from a business owner's standpoint, 70 percent of the cost of corporate taxes actually does not get paid by a corporation; it gets paid by the people who work for those businesses. If we cut taxes, more of that money is going to go to the workers. You will have higher wages, better benefits, and more jobs, and businesses will actually be able to lower their prices. Every time there is a tax increase, a business has to raise the cost of a product to be able to collect that tax and send it to the government. I would rather have that money go into the pockets of the people who are shopping in the store or using that business rather than into the pocket of the Federal Government. Senator Isakson was talking about something called repatriation and the amount of money businesses are taxed that do some business overseas. If we can cut the taxes they pay on the money they earn overseas, it means those businesses can bring back that money to the United States and spend it here. How much is it? Right now, about $2.6 trillion is sitting overseas because those businesses get taxed twice-- once on the business done overseas and then once on the business done when they bring those profits back to the United States. When we get that money back, that is going to help grow the economy here as well. It makes sure the American Tax Code ought to be helping American businesses and the American economy, not helping foreign countries. We need to get that money back and put it to work in the United States. Those are all of the things the Republicans are proposing. It means more money in the pockets of American workers, and it means simpler taxes and more jobs for American workers. Isn't that what we are looking for? Isn't that what prosperity means for America? Isn't that what a healthy economy means--job growth and the sort of things that happen when we get the kind of tax reform we have proposed? I want to address one other thing I have heard over the past couple of days as our plan has come out. I have heard some Members on the other side of the aisle say that under the Republican plan, certain people will win more than others. Under the Republican plan, the goal is for everyone to win. The American economy will win. When we have a growing economy, people keep more of their hard-earned money. That is the goal. That is why the President and the Republicans in Congress wanted to take up tax relief right now in the first place. We need to do this to help all American families. This gets back to Ronald Reagan, in that tax reform--tax reductions, tax relief--means a big and hopeful future for all Americans. That should be the goal. It should be the goal of every Member of the U.S. Senate. It should be the goal of every American. We want to make taxes fairer and simpler and lower for everyone. There are too many people in Washington right now who want to use America's tax laws to punish or reward one group of Americans or another. Too many people in Washington want to use this debate over tax reform to stir up conflict and resentment. We hear it already in the Democrats' talking points. There are some Democrats in this Senate who think that is good politics. Well, it is terrible policy and terrible for the direction of our country and economy. The tax plan the Republicans have released this last week does nothing to change who bears the burden of taxes in the country. People who are fortunate and have high incomes will pay their fair share; people who make less will pay less. That is how the Tax Code is spread today. Nothing in this plan changes that. We have a lot of work ahead of us. We have to figure out the exact income levels for each of the tax brackets and the size of some of the tax credits families get. These are all important details. That is the kind of debate we are going to be having--the markup on the budget and the mathematics of the tax bill coming through committee. I am so grateful to Senator Hatch and members of the Finance Committee for all of the hard work they will be putting into this over the next several weeks. I will refer back to the quote of the Treasury Secretary, Bill Simon, who said: ``The nation should have a tax code that looks like someone designed it on purpose.'' This is our chance. We need to make sure we take full advantage of it. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, last week the Senate passed the bipartisan Defense Authorization Act. The world is a very dangerous place. This legislation is very important to keeping our country safe. Another thing we need to do to keep America safe is to get the economy going and growing. We need a strong and healthy economy in this country, and we need it now. A strong economy means a strong country with enough money to pay for the defense needs that we have at this time. Over the 8 years of the Obama administration, Washington doubled its debt. Why? Because our economy grew so slowly and the administration spent too much money. If this sort of thing continues, it is going to leave America in a much more vulnerable position. America needs a stronger economy that grows faster. To get the kind of growth we need, we are going to have to provide real tax relief for America, for hard-working families, and for the economy. That means cutting tax rates, and it means simplifying taxes for everyone. If we get this right, we are going to be able to produce more jobs, Americans will have higher wages, more take-home pay, and we will have a stronger economy. According to the Internal Revenue Service, Americans spend about 6 billion hours a year on taxes, just trying to prepare their taxes. Between businesses and individual families, we spend an average of 18 hours for every man, woman, and child in America, just trying to comply with Washington's complicated Tax Code. The National Taxpayers Union says that the total cost of all of this is $263 billion a year. That works out to about $800 for every person in America. This is not spending that does anything productive. It is just figuring out how much tax to pay, and how to do it in a way to send it back to Washington so that the IRS will not come knocking at your door--how to get your numbers right. The instructions for last year's standard 1040 tax form were 106 pages long. These are the instructions--15 different worksheets for people to fill out just to try to fill out the forms. The people who can deal with this level of complexity are the ones who basically can afford to hire expensive accountants and lawyers, who then take full advantage of a very complicated tax code. It penalizes hard-working Americans who can't afford the high-priced help that helps them fill out and take full advantage of a complicated tax code. We hear a lot about people who talk about how millionaires and billionaires are gaming the system so that they can pay less in taxes. If that is their concern, then maybe we should try to make this system simple enough that there is no system to game and everyone can understand it. Just think about how much we could save this country if we simplify things even a little bit. All the time we could save, all the extra money in the pockets of hard-working American families--that would really help to grow the economy and do it quickly. It would also make life a lot simpler for most Americans. If we also, at the same time as simplifying the Tax Code, lower the tax rates, that keeps even more money in people's pockets. It gives them more money to decide what to save, what to spend, and what to invest--money they can spend going out to dinner if they choose. They can invest it if they want, and save for the future. If they actually choose to spend the money by going out to dinner, that helps the economy around the community where they live. People at the restaurants have to hire additional servers, and they will then have money to pay their own bills. That is how an economy grows. That is how providing people with more money in their pockets helps an economy become stronger and healthier. There is another important part of tax relief we need to remember. We need to be sure we solve a big problem with the taxes that not just individuals pay but that businesses pay. The reason we need to do that is because many people think of businesses as big, faceless companies, but the simple fact is that these businesses actually don't pay the taxes personally. People have to pay the taxes. That is because businesses pay taxes with money they get from their customers. If the government says it is going to put a big tax on some company, that basically gets passed on to the workers there and also to the people who buy that product. The Congressional Budget Office looked into this. Their office looked into it, and they found that more than 70 percent of the cost of corporate taxes actually comes from the people who work for these businesses. Nearly 3 out of every 4 dollars they spend in taxes would have ended up going back to the workers to have that money--workers who are either buying products or workers working within the company. Maybe it would have been higher wages or better benefits or some other way that people would have gotten a benefit from the money that otherwise just gets collected and sent to the government. Obviously, a big chunk of the money is from the workers, and another big chunk is from the consumers. If a family buys something, part of the price they are paying is to cover the taxes that business has to pay. The higher taxes mean higher prices for people who go to buy something. The third way that people pay these business taxes is when they get paid by the people who own a share of the business. If you take a look, there are a lot of people on the other side of the aisle who like to talk about taxing the rich who own stock in companies that are all across our country. The only problem is, most of the people who actually own shares in these companies are far from rich. More than half of Americans actually own stocks in corporations that are paying these high taxes. Maybe they have an IRA, a retirement plan, a 401(k) through their work. Whatever it is, Americans who are investing for their future are also being taxed. Some of the biggest owners of these corporations are actually the pension funds of public employees. That includes teachers, it includes firefighters, it includes people in every community around America. Taxes take away money that could make these pensions worth more. When the government takes taxes away, there is less money in the pension plans for our teachers, for our firefighters, for our first responders. So it is a real problem that the corporate tax rates are so high because high taxes hold back the entire economy and hold back the entire country. If you look at the most developed countries around the world, the United States has the highest corporate tax rate of all of them. The average tax rate of all of these major countries around the world-- across the globe--is 24 percent. In the United States, it is 39 percent. We are 15 percent higher in tax rates than the average of the major countries around the world. So that is the top Federal rate, and when you include the average for State and local taxes, it gets you to 39 percent--24 percent versus 39 percent. That is how far out of the ordinary American taxes have become. It is a huge disadvantage for American companies that are trying to compete on the world stage. Frankly, the reason we are at such a disadvantage is that other countries have been cutting their tax rates over the years. There was actually a time when the U.S. tax rates were fairly low, and other countries continued to cut theirs below ours. Now we are at a point that the average for developed countries around the world is at 24 percent, and the United States is at 39 percent. Places like Germany, Japan, and Canada have all cut their rates going back over the last 60, 70 years. We haven't done it here at all. Now it is time to do it. It is one of the reasons our economy has been stuck with the slow growth rate that we had during the Obama administration. It is what we have seen over the last 8 years--a very sluggish economy with very little growth. If we can cut corporate tax rates, personal rates, that is going to really help stimulate the economy. People pay taxes. It is the individuals who pay the taxes that in many ways run the government. Many people I talk to in Wyoming feel, rightly so, that the problem isn't that they are taxed too little; it is that the government takes too much. We need to get the economy going, and we can do that by simplifying and lowering the tax rates. It is true that, with taxes, people actually struggle with trying to figure them out at the kitchen table. I have talked to those folks at home. It is continually a problem--the simplification, as well as how much money the government takes from them. Taxes raise prices. Taxes chip away at retirement savings that people have. Tax relief and simplifying taxes makes sense for American families. It means more jobs. It means higher wages. It means a safer America and a stronger America. It is good for our economy, and it is good for all hard-working taxpayers and the families those taxpayers support. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Caroline for her hard work as an intern for the Senate Republican Policy Committee. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Caroline is a native of Arizona. She is a graduate of Pepperdine University, where she studied integrated marketing communication. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Caroline for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Sabrina for her hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Sabrina is a native of California. She currently attends Wellesley College, where she is studying political science. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Sabrina for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Tyler Smith for his hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Tyler is a native of Illinois. He is a graduate of Indiana University, where he studied public affairs. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Tyler for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It is a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last week, the junior Senator from Vermont and a group of other Democrats unveiled a proposal to have Washington take over healthcare for everyone in America. Some refer to it as BernieCare. They intend to do this on the backs of American seniors, which is of grave concern to me as a doctor who has taken care of many senior citizens--many people on Medicaid--as part of my practice as an orthopedic surgeon. Their idea is to put everyone in this country on a new program that operates like Medicare. That is about 250 million Americans who would be added on to the Medicare Program, which is already being strained. One-third of the Democrats in the Senate have signed on to this plan. It seems to be the litmus test for the liberal left. Several of them came to the floor last night to criticize efforts by the Republican Party to save America's failing healthcare system. Problems with the American healthcare system, as a result of ObamaCare, continue to get worse, and the impacts, such as those that I hear every weekend in Wyoming, including this past weekend. From what I heard from the Democrats, they seem to want to let the system collapse in a way that they can then impose a complete Washington takeover of healthcare in America. To me, this plan they are proposing is going to be devastating to people currently on Medicare. These are the seniors who rely on Medicare today. What the Democrats are proposing is going to, in my opinion, undermine the stability, the integrity, and the certainty of the Medicare Program on which our seniors rely, and for them, it is truly their lives that depend upon it. Remember when President Obama promised that if people liked their insurance, they could keep their insurance, and that if they liked their plan, they could keep their plan? Well, people realize that is not exactly what happened. Many people lost their plan. They lost their insurance. It got more expensive, harder to afford, and millions ended up paying a fine, a fee, or a tax--whatever you want to call it-- because they weren't able to afford the premiums for the plan that President Obama said they had to buy, and they lost their own plans. Well, now it seems that if Democrats have their way, millions of seniors will find out that they are not going to be able to keep the insurance that they have right now that they depend upon and that they use on a daily basis. The Sanders plan will get rid of Medicare Advantage plans. We have 17 million seniors in this country who are on a Medicare Advantage plan. The reason they sign up for Medicare Advantage is that for them personally, when they study it, there are advantages to Medicare Advantage for them in terms of preventive care and coordinated care. That would all go away under BernieCare. It is interesting to watch this whole process unfold because one in three people who are currently on Medicare have chosen to go outside the system the Democrats want to put them into. They want to put everyone into it, but a third of the people on Medicare have chosen a different way. What happens to these 17 million Americans who are currently on Medicare Advantage with the scheme that Senator Sanders and other Democrats have come up with? They don't say. Did the Democrats who came to the floor last night have anything to say about these 17 million seniors who would lose their Medicare, seniors who are on Medicare today? What is going to happen to them? They are going to lose what they have today. A lot of seniors are probably going to lose access to their doctors as well because when their plans change, their doctors change. That is because there are going to be doctors who won't be able to take care of these new Medicare patients whom ObamaCare has caused to have problems, but it is made worse with what is being proposed by Senator Sanders. Right now, it can be tough for a senior to find a doctor. These are seniors on Medicare. That is because today about one in four doctors doesn't take new Medicare patients or take any Medicare patients. But certainly as more and more people--and 10,000 baby boomers a day are turning 65 and going on Medicare. There are more and more people on Medicare without an expansion of the number of doctors to take care of them. Since the reimbursement is lower, what doctors and hospitals are paid to take care of Medicare patients is lower than what those doctors or hospitals get paid for patients with private insurance. Their priority, when they are already crowded and loaded in their office and very busy taking care of patients, with waiting rooms full--their choice, of course, is to choose patients who pay them more than what they get from the government. You say: Why is that? Is that right? Well, having practiced medicine for 24 years and having run an office, there are issues related to paying nurses, healthcare personnel, rent, electricity--all the costs of running an office, let alone the high cost of medical malpractice insurance. We know the huge cost of that. A physician who wants to be able to pay his or her bills needs to take all those things into consideration. And with Medicare paying less than the current going rate for care at hospitals and with doctors, the concern is, Will Medicare patients be able to find a doctor in the first place? The Democrats' solution is to cram more people onto Medicare when we already have 10,000 people a day joining the ranks of Medicare and Social Security. If a doctor has a lot of Medicare patients, he or she has to make sure they have enough other patients who have insurance to make up for the lower rates Washington pays. Well, under the Democratic plan, doctors won't have the backup of private insurance companies because that is all going to go away. All those things will be lost to people who want to buy private insurance. Under the plan the Democrats are now--and it is not just Democrats in the Senate; a majority of the Democrats in the House of Representatives have cosponsored legislation by Representative Conyers that does exactly the same thing: puts everyone on a Medicare Program-- a government takeover of healthcare. When the Democrats came to the floor last night, I didn't hear them say anything about that. How are they going to guarantee that seniors will keep their doctors? Seniors are not going to be able to keep their doctors under the Sanders liberal-left plan that is being proposed and cosponsored by over half of the Democrats who are in the House of Representatives. We are already facing a shortage of doctors in this country. The Association of American Medical Colleges, which helps oversee the training of doctors, says that the shortfall could be as many as 100,000 doctors across the country within the next decade. If we have fewer doctors and more people trying to get appointments, that means less access for seniors. It is not even clear if Washington can afford to add every man, woman, and child on to a government program like Medicare because Washington has done a terrible job in running Medicare as it is. The Medicare trust fund is supposed to be exhausted at the end of the 2020s. That is what the Medicare trustees are telling us. In 12 years, they say, there will only be enough money coming in to fund about 8 or 9 cents on the dollar of what the benefits for Medicare are supposed to be paying out. The program is going to have to start doing something-- either raising taxes or cutting benefits. From what I have seen proposed by Senator Sanders, it would be raising taxes a lot. The Medicare trustees say the program needs significant reform. They say it is already unsustainable. The Democrats' plan does nothing to change any of that. It does nothing to reform the program. All it does is crowd more people into a system that is already struggling financially. My concern is that the Democrats' plan is going to undermine the stability of the Medicare Program that our seniors desperately need. We should be taking steps now to shore up, to strengthen Medicare so that it is able to keep the promises that we made to our seniors. My goal is to save, to strengthen, and to simplify Medicare. That is not what we are seeing here. A few years ago, we knew the Medicaid Program needed help. Democrats just threw more people into the system with ObamaCare. That is what they did. With the expansion of ObamaCare, the majority of people who have new coverage under ObamaCare didn't get it through private insurance; they were put in to the Medicaid Program, which has significantly strained Medicaid and made it much harder for people on Medicaid, the people for whom it was originally designed--low-income, women, children, people with disabilities. It was designed to help them. It made it harder for them to get care because all these individuals who were working-age adults were put on in addition. Now it looks as though the Democrats want to do the same thing they did to hurt Medicaid--make it harder for our patients on Medicare. It won't work. An insurance card does not equal accessible, available access to care. The people who suffer the most are going to be the seniors who have no other options. These are seniors who are relying on Medicare today. They were promised that Medicare would be there for them. We need to keep that promise. Instead of protecting seniors today, however, Democrats are trying to give Medicare to everyone else. So 17 million seniors are going to lose access to the plans that they have chosen, that work for them, and that they want to keep. Seniors are going to lose access to the doctors that Democrats push out of the system as they continue to put more and more people on Medicare. Democrats should not be building their takeover of the American healthcare system on the backs of our seniors. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I think it is clear to people all across America that the U.S. healthcare system needs reform. Premiums for health insurance are going up by double digits across the country. People living in almost half of the country only have one company selling ObamaCare plans. Millions of people are struggling. They are struggling to get coverage they can afford so they can get the care they need. I will state that it is all because of the healthcare law that the Democrats wrote and passed in Congress and inflicted upon the American people, which raised the costs for people all across the country and limited their choices. Today the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, and other Democrats said they want to take this failing healthcare system even further. They call their plan ``Medicare for all.'' Don't be fooled. They want to take a plan that has government much more involved in the healthcare of the American people and go much further. I don't believe it is actually a serious plan to help fix the challenges we are facing in this country, but it is now the new litmus test for the liberal left. If this idea were ever to become law, it would mean worse care and it would be outrageously expensive. The plan the Democrats are talking about would amount to complete Washington control over the healthcare of every man, woman, and child in America, and taxpayers would have to pick up the tab. Supporters of putting the Federal Government in Washington, DC, in charge of personal healthcare decisions like to claim that this is the way that other countries do it as well. They like to cite as an example the United Kingdom. Well, a lot of people in the United Kingdom see their system of nationalized healthcare entering a death spiral, and it looks a lot like what has happened to ObamaCare. The waiting lines in England have recently gotten a lot longer for people waiting to get care. They are actually setting new records for how long you have to wait in line to get care in England. For emergency care, they have more people waiting in line in the emergency room for 12 hours or longer. Those numbers have gone up--12 hours or longer--and it has gotten worse. Let's say you have a chronic condition, a long-term medical condition. To start treatment for long-term medical conditions, the number of people having to wait 18 weeks or longer has gone up. If Democrats get their way, the American people will have the same kinds of delays. It is inevitable. The problem isn't just the delays. If Washington pays all of the bills, Washington will want much tighter control over care. The Democrats' new scheme will come with a much more powerful rationing board. You can see it coming. In England, the rationing of healthcare means that certain medications are not allowed. There are limits on things like knee and hip operations. The same thing is true in Canada. Medical boards in some parts of the country have banned surgeries for people who are obese or who are smokers. How do you think that would work in the United States? Close to 40 percent of Americans are now considered obese. Would they all be blocked from getting operations that would help improve their health and quality of life? It is only if the rationing board were to say so. The British have to ration healthcare partly because of the enormous cost of so-called free medical care. They also have a shortage of people who actually provide the care. Since 2016, there has been a net loss of more than 5,000 nurses and midwives across the British healthcare system. More than a quarter of the nurses who quit cited disillusionment over the quality of care provided to patients. Nurses are quitting because of the poor quality of care provided to patients. It is a great concern. The United Kingdom ranks 20th out of 24th among Western countries for breast cancer survival. For survival, the United States is first. If you are a woman with breast cancer or a man with prostate cancer, your chances of survival and successful treatment are much, much greater in the United States than they are in Great Britain. It is not that the doctors in this country are that much smarter. It is that people get care sooner. There are not all these long waiting lines. But that will happen if the plan endorsed by 15 Democrats in the Senate and the majority of the Democrats in the House were to ever become law. Let's talk about stroke. For the most common kind of stroke, the United Kingdom is 25th out of 30 countries in terms of recovery, solutions, and success. The United States is fourth. Of course, all of what the Democrats are proposing will not come cheap. Democrats in California had their own scheme earlier this year. When the group that looks at what the cost is going to be reviewed it-- and I was in the State senate in Wyoming, and in any key piece of legislation, we would have to do a fiscal note, which is what it is going to cost--in California what they proposed would cost about $400 billion a year. So how much does the entire State of California pay to run the whole State over the course of a year? What is their budget for the year? It is less than half that amount. So what they are proposing on healthcare is double what they pay for everything that the State of California does. Last year, Senator Sanders gave a rough sketch of his plan as part of his Presidential campaign. It would have raised Washington's total healthcare expenditures by $32 trillion over just the first 10 years. To pay for it, he wanted to raise taxes, including higher payroll taxes on workers. The problem was that all of these new taxes would pay for less than half of the government's new spending. The legislation written and cosponsored by Democrats in the House says that it would be paid for by things like--and this is in their words--``a modest tax on unearned income'' and a ``small tax on stock and bond transactions.'' Remember how President Obama promised that his healthcare law wouldn't raise taxes on middle-class families--in his words--by a single dime? It turns out that the law included dozens of taxes on American working families, certainly including middle-class Americans all across the country. Democrats say that total Washington control over healthcare would make things so efficient, that it would save a whole lot of money. Does anyone believe that is ever going to happen? A lot of people have the stress of dealing between their doctor and their insurance company, and there are a lot of problems out there. Nothing in the Democrats' takeover of healthcare changes any of that. It just means that the people will be caught in the middle between a fight with their government and a bunch of unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington, DC. How is that better? Where will we see savings from that? The Democrats have no real answers, just empty promises. You can tell that it is not a real plan because when Democrats had a chance to actually vote on this idea in the Senate, they took a pass. In July, the Senate voted on a bill written by House Democrats. We brought it to the floor of the Senate during the healthcare debate and put it up for a vote. As to the bill that half of the Democrats in the House had cosponsored, they said: Let's give the Senators an opportunity. Every Republican voted against it, and 43 Democrats voted present. Democrats had a chance to stand up and vote for the idea that they love to talk about, but not a single Senator voted for it, including Senator Sanders. Now some of us suspected that this was where the debate over ObamaCare was headed all along. The healthcare law, as passed years ago, was so obviously flawed that there was no way it would work the way the Democrats promised. You had to wonder if Democrats actually wanted it to fail so they could push for more Washington control, more government control over your healthcare. You can call it the old Potomac two-step. When we were debating ObamaCare in 2009, Senator Sanders came to the floor of the Senate and said that a full Washington takeover of healthcare was the way to go. Today he is taking his shot. The ObamaCare markets are in shambles. There is no denying that ObamaCare failed to keep its promises. The American people are paying a very steep price for the failures of the law. The promises that Democrats are making about their new healthcare scheme are even more outlandish. When it fails, the damage will be catastrophic. We cannot allow that to happen to the American people. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.