John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the Wray and Newsom nominations, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week we are about the business of keeping our promises. For 7 years, we have promised to help the millions of Americans who have been let down, not to mention deceived, by the promises of ObamaCare. It is absolutely critical that we fulfill our commitments. This is not just about moving past the failures of ObamaCare but laying the groundwork for providing Americans access to better care. We said all along that we have four principles: One is to help stabilize the insurance markets so people living in Iowa, for example, would make sure they have a place where they can actually buy health insurance. It is about getting premiums lower by eliminating the mandates and making it possible for people to choose alternatives that happen to suit their needs at a price they can afford. Third, we said we are going to continue to do everything in our power to protect people with preexisting conditions so they are not afraid about changing jobs and being excluded from their new employer's insurance coverage because of something we have done here. We protect people against the preexisting conditions exclusion. Fourth, what we said we want to do is to take Medicaid, an essential safety net healthcare program, and make sure we put it on a sustainable path. I know there are some in Washington, DC, who think we can just continue to spend borrowed money endlessly. Well, we can't. It really jeopardizes the very viability of some of our most essential safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare, and, yes, Medicaid in this instance. What we have done, and what we intend to do, working with our colleagues in the House, is to put Medicaid on a sustainable path while we grow the expenditures to Medicaid each year, over a 10-year period, by $71 billion. So those who say we are somehow gutting Medicaid or we are cutting Medicaid, I think, they simply have to deal with those facts. I haven't heard a satisfactory explanation for how you can conclude that somehow we are gutting Medicaid or cutting it when we are actually making it sustainable in the long run. Throughout this process, what I have learned is, Senators have a lot of different ideas. Everybody has come to the table to try to help make this better. I would say, unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues have chosen not to participate in the process. This would be a lot easier-- and the product we come up with would be a lot more durable over the long haul--if, in fact, Democrats would work with us. The fact is, in this amendment process we are engaged in, and will be engaged in this evening, any Senator, Democrat or Republican, majority, minority party Member, can offer an amendment and get a vote on it. So I don't really understand why our Democratic colleagues are sitting on their hands and will not participate in the process. I fear what they want is to change nothing about the structure of ObamaCare, notwithstanding the failed experiment of the last 7 years. Then what they want to do is come back and throw money at the insurance companies under these cost-sharing risk pools. We are willing to do what we need to do to stabilize the insurance market, but I am not going to vote for an insurance company bailout without reform. Leader McConnell reiterated yesterday that our constituents are counting on us. I can tell you, the 28 million Texans I have the great privilege of representing are counting on me and Senator Cruz to do our part to come up with a solution. The Texan whose premiums have tripled and lost his doctor is counting on us. The ER employee who witnessed the emergency room busting at the seams with Medicaid patients--people who ostensibly have coverage under Medicaid but who can't find a doctor who will accept a new Medicaid patient so they end up going to the emergency room--is counting on us. The small business owner who was forced to fire employees to avoid a $100,000 fine, that person is counting on us too. The young woman coming out of nursing school who was forced to change her plan three times, only to end up with a plan with coverage options she didn't want, at a price she could barely afford, she is counting on us too. My constituents in Texas and Americans across the country are counting on us. They are sick and tired of the bickering and the lack of productivity here in Washington, DC, and I don't blame them one bit. They are counting on us to free them from some of ObamaCare's mandates that force them to make very tough economic decisions, like the 28 million people under ObamaCare who either pay a fine--about 6.5 million of them--or, the rest, who claim hardship exemptions so they don't have to buy insurance. But in Texas alone, there are more than 400,000 Texans who earn less than $25,000 a year who can't afford to buy the insurance. So they pay the fine to the government. So their government fines them for not buying a product they can't afford. So now is the time to deliver some relief to our constituents. They are counting on us to keep the deeply personal choice of healthcare plans and doctors in their hands and not the Federal Government's. So it is time to deliver, and my goal is to make sure we find a solution and get it to the President's desk. One of the most offensive parts of the Affordable Care Act--or we should have called it the un-Affordable Care Act, since premiums have gone up 105 percent since 2013 alone--is that people who were told a family of four would see a reduction of $2,500 a year in their premiums have seen their premiums go up by more than $3,000. There are a lot of stories--I am sure even here in this room, in this Chamber--where people simply have seen their premiums go up, up, and up along with their deductibles, basically denying them the benefit of their insurance. But the individual mandate is a prime example of government getting in the way of individual freedom and the right to choose. The so-called individual mandate--we really should call this the penalty that government imposes on its citizens for failing to purchase a product they don't want and, in some cases, don't even need--forces them to do so at a cost that was crippling and continues to be crippling for many individuals and families. Here is a shocking statistic. An estimated 8 million Americans pay the fine associated with this mandate each year. Eight million Americans are penalized by their own government, forced to pay a fine that could be used on coverage that might actually suit their needs. If ObamaCare would make it possible that the market could prosper and insurance companies offered a variety of products at different prices that people could choose from, maybe some of these folks could take the money they are paying their own government as a penalty and actually buy insurance coverage. Then there is the employer mandate. This is one of the most pernicious of the mandates. I remember sitting with a friend of mine, who happens to own a small architectural firm in San Antonio, back when ObamaCare passed, and I explained to him: If you have more than 50 employees, then you are going to have to buy or provide ObamaCare- compliant healthcare for your employees. He said: Well, I may have to lay off some people because we have 54 employees. So I am going to have to fire at least four of them to get below that 50-person threshold so I can avoid the fine and the insurance that I can't afford to provide for my employees. So this has literally been a job-killing employer mandate. This is not some benign or innocuous requirement. This has been one of the reasons why the economy has been so anemic even since the great recession of 2008, and this is the reason why so many people feel like the economy has not really recovered, because it hasn't provided them job opportunities and larger wages. So this mandate has stifled business growth, to be sure, especially among small businesses, which are the primary job engine of our economy. Oftentimes jobs were cut in order to avoid bankrupting the business through ObamaCare fines. So Americans have been forced by their own government, no less-- government is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around-- to live under mandates, taxes, broken promises, and collapsing markets for too long. So this week is about keeping our promises, demonstrating that we can govern, even, unfortunately, without the assistance of our Democratic colleagues, and paving the way to tackle other important issues, like tax reform, infrastructure construction--things we need to do to keep the economy growing and moving forward. So we will be hearing more about a possible solution and a way forward, something I call ``the freedom to choose'' plan, where we free the American people from the destructive impact of this so-called individual mandate, where we free small employers from the employer mandate, letting them hire the employees they need and not having to choose between that and bankruptcy. And, yes, we are going to push more power out of Washington, DC, and back to the States. I know, based on the public opinion polling I have seen, that people sure trust their States a lot more than they trust Washington, DC, when it comes to healthcare. So we are going to provide the flexibility and tools that the States, the Governors, and the legislators need, as well as the insurance commissioners, to come up with a viable market using resources we are going to provide to them. It would be better if we could all come together to find a solution to engage in debate--Republicans and Democrats alike--and pass a final product and get it to the President's desk. That is, actually, how the legislature is supposed to function. But unfortunately we are in unusual times, when almost half of the Senate refuses to participate. Actually, they will be actively trying to undermine our efforts to come to the rescue of the people that are hurting as a result of the deception and the failures of ObamaCare. I don't know how you explain that. You certainly can't explain it to constituents like I have. I bet you a dollar that every single one of the Senators here who is trying to blow up this process and undermine the progress we are making has constituents back home who are suffering the same way my constituents are, but they are turning a deaf ear to them and saying: You know what, politics and party and ideology are more important to me than actually addressing the needs of my constituents. That is what their actions are effectively saying, and it is a shame. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I think it is only fair that each side gets 5 minutes to speak. Everybody is ready to vote. We had 2 hours of debate. So I would ask to amend the unanimous consent request that each side be given 5 minutes to close, divided up any way you want. I ask unanimous consent that each side be given 5 minutes to speak.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it is important to remember how we got here. I still remember voting on the Affordable Care Act at 7:30 in the morning on Christmas Eve. Because this bill--the 2,700-page bill that our Democratic friends did not read and which Ms. Pelosi said we have to pass it before we know what is in it--that bill was passed on a party-line vote and signed into law by President Obama without any participation of Republicans. So it is a little hard on the ears to hear my friend, the Democratic leader, plead for bipartisan solutions now. I agree with him, it is not too late because this is an open amendment process. Our Democratic friends, rather than trying to kill the bill, can help us make this bill better. I suspect that based on their comments, that they really need--we need to have some sort of remedial legislation 101 because this is not the end of the process. But in order for the House and the Senate to work together to come up with a bill we both agree to, there is a conference committee, which Members of both parties can appoint Members to the conference committee to work out differences. I don't believe my friend, the Democratic leader, is really interested in working on a bipartisan basis to fix the structural defects in ObamaCare. We know the individual market is in meltdown. Premiums are skyrocketing, contrary to the promises made by the President when the bill was sold. We know deductibles are so high that people are basically denied the benefit of their coverage and, yes, insurance companies are fleeing because they are bleeding red ink, and they can't economically sell insurance on the exchanges anymore. So we all know something needs to be done, but we are not interested in just throwing more money at insurance companies, bailing out insurance companies, which is what I have heard from our friends on the other side. Well, it is not true. It is not the only thing we have heard. We have also heard the Senator from Vermont, for example, advocate for a single-payer system. What this bill does do is it repeals the individual mandate, which to us is an unacceptable government coercion of American citizens forcing them to buy a product they don't want and they can't afford, because currently 28 million people are uninsured under ObamaCare. I thought it was supposed to provide coverage for everybody, but in my State, about 450,000 Texans who earn less than $25,000 a year are paying the penalty because they can't afford the insurance, so they pay the penalty, and it is not working. We are doing everything we can, given the fact that our friends on the other side of the aisle are simply sitting on their hands and not participating in the process, other than to try to undermine it. We intend to pass a bill and go to conference with the House to make this bill better because our goal is to stabilize the markets, to bring down premiums, to protect people with preexisting conditions, and to put Medicaid, the safety net for low-income Americans, on a sustainable path. You would think those would be things that our colleagues across the aisle would want to join us in and participate in but apparently not. We need to move on. We can't let the fact that our Democratic friends are unwilling to participate keep us from doing our duty the best we can under the circumstances, and that is what this bill represents. It is not perfect, but it is better than the status quo, and we intend to do our duty. Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am advised we are not in a quorum call. Is that correct?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday we took a giant step toward delivering on our promise to the American people to provide relief from the failures of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare. Over the last 7 years, we have discussed what our solution would look like, and everybody who has been willing to participate in that conversation--sadly, not our Democratic colleagues, who simply refuse to do so, but every Member of our conference--has engaged in discussions and has had input on how best to accomplish the goal of providing people affordable coverage, increased access, market stability, and better care. We can talk about all of the details, but basically what this boils down to is how to provide people with access to quality, affordable health care. I know some of our friends across the aisle thought the Affordable Care Act was it, but it failed. It started with the promises that were made by President Obama when he sold this to the American people, saying: If you like your policy, you can keep your policy; if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. He said that premiums would go down $2,500 for a family of four, none of which have proved to be true--none of which have proved to be true. Now we find that in many parts of the country, insurance companies are pulling out, limiting if not denying altogether people's access to coverage within the exchanges. We know what has happened to premiums. Since 2013, they have gone up 105 percent nationally--a 105-percent increase in premiums. People find that their deductibles are so high that they effectively are self-insured. They have been denied the benefit of their own insurance. Nominally, they may have insurance, but the fact is, if you go to the hospital, you are going to be responsible personally for what is not covered by that deductible. Even our colleagues across the aisle admit that ObamaCare has failed to provide stable access to insurance markets, but their solution has been to pay more money to insurance companies. I would call that an insurance company bailout without any reform, without any changes in the basic structure of ObamaCare, which has caused this failure. What we have tried to do on this side of the aisle--and we have repeatedly invited our Democratic colleagues to join us because optimally this would be a bipartisan effort, but so far they have refused to participate whatsoever and really are focused solely on trying to blow up the current process. What we have said we want to accomplish are four things. We want to stabilize the insurance markets. We want to bring premiums down so they are more affordable. We want to protect people with preexisting conditions. We want to put Medicaid--the safety net for low-income Americans--on a sustainable path. Of course, as you might imagine with something as complex as healthcare, we have had a number of opinions on how best to achieve these goals. Even as approaches and ideas have differed, one thing has remained constant: the belief that the status quo is simply unacceptable. It is unacceptable. Take, for example, one of my constituents in Texas, who wrote me recently to say that his monthly insurance premium under the Affordable Care Act had nearly tripled, to $690, and his deductible, to my earlier point, went from $1,500 to $6,000. I don't know many people--unless they happen to be well-to-do--who can afford to absorb those sorts of increases in premiums and deductibles. Because his coverage went from a PPO, a preferred provider organization, to an HMO, a health maintenance organization, some of his doctors are no longer in the network, forcing him to switch healthcare providers entirely. This story is certainly not unique. It is typical. This is the norm under the Affordable Care Act. I often hear from Texans who would rather drop their coverage and pay the costly fine rather than have to pay for insurance that will cost them more and more each month, which they can't afford. Here is a telling statistic. More than 400,000 Texans who earn less than $25,000 a year have decided to pay the penalty rather than to be forced to buy the insurance they can't afford, so many of them pay the penalty because of the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act. They are left with nothing, other than having to pay the penalty as required by the law. That is not a solution. That is why I hope that someday we can get out of this rut and off of the talking points on each side and say: What can we do to try to provide people access to affordable health care? That is the key. People are going to make their own decisions based on their own economic self-interest. If you are a young person, you might decide: What I would like to do is to buy a policy that will cover me in emergency circumstances if I have to go to the hospital, but I don't want to have to pay for all the bells and whistles that raise the price. You can't do that under the Affordable Care Act and take advantage of the tax subsidies that everybody else can. It is basically a false promise. I also heard from another small business owner in Donna, TX, who was forced to fire four employees just to comply with the employer mandate or otherwise owe the government more than $100,000 in fines that he said could bankrupt his business. Those are the kinds of decisions that ObamaCare is forcing. Rather than hire enough people--or if you have more than 50--you decide you need to fire people in order to avoid these penalties that come from the employer mandate. That is not good for the economy. That is not good for the job prospects of hard-working Texans. I shared the story of a constituent in Needville, TX, who, after a 50-percent increase in his monthly premiums, still lost his doctor because the doctor wouldn't accept his ObamaCare plan. Then there is the emergency room employee in North Texas, who wrote me to say that she has seen a significant increase in the Medicare and Medicaid patients in the emergency room because fewer and fewer doctors would accept these patients. In my State, only about one-third of doctors will accept a new Medicaid patient because it pays at such a low rate. We have a better idea that will make people up to 350 percent of the Federal poverty level eligible for a tax credit they can use to buy private insurance, which will increase their access to care and make it more affordable. We have coupled that with something called the innovation and stability fund, in which we have taken the authority out of Washington and sent it back to the States to let Governors and State legislators and regulators at the local level design policies that meet the needs of the people in the States. The basic structural failure of ObamaCare was to assume that you could write a one-size-fits-all plan for 320 million-plus people that would work. It hasn't. We know that. That is not speculation; this is based on experience. I know my colleagues across the aisle have heard similar stories from their constituents, as well, but apparently they don't seem to care very much about that. Otherwise, they would join with us in trying to improve the status quo, which they have refused so far to do. One thing about the procedure that we are undertaking here is that any Senator who wants to offer an amendment to improve the bill or even offer a complete substitute to the bill is entitled to do so, and they will get a vote on that. Our colleagues on the Democratic side, despite hearing from their own constituents that they are hurting as a result of the status quo, appear not willing to lift a finger to help them. Indeed, the only proposal I have heard from the other side--I have heard two. One is an insurance company bailout, which does nothing to effect reforms that would ultimately address the structural problems with ObamaCare or else they say: We want to have a single-payer system, which will bankrupt the country. Those are their solutions. On Monday, I noted that in an effort to try to unite their deeply divided party after last year's elections, our Democratic colleagues unveiled an economic agenda aimed at, they say, lifting up lower and middle-class Americans. That is an admirable goal. If Democrats are really serious about helping lower and middle-income Americans, one glaring and immediate action they could take is to join us in alleviating the burdens placed on these very same folks by ObamaCare--the types of people I have been talking about back in Texas, whom I know exist in their States as well. If the Democratic leader refuses to help get rid of one of the biggest economic burdens on lower and middle-income Americans, then his plan is not worth the paper it is printed on. What they are offering is false hope. Unless you are willing to deal concretely with the problem here and now, that is just another campaign promise--one they will not be able to keep until they address what the failures of the Affordable Care Act have imposed on low- and middle-income Americans. Simply stated, ObamaCare is a failed experiment. It has failed because Washington has tried to do too much at the expense of individual choices, individual liberties, and family control over what are deeply personal decisions. With each day that passes, ObamaCare keeps getting worse. The premiums for 2018 will soon be announced by the insurance companies, and we are going to see double-digit increases again, over and above what ObamaCare has seen so far--105-percent increases since 2013 alone--on top of that. After yesterday's vote, we now have the opportunity to provide relief from this failed law. I know Members have a lot of ideas about how to fix the mess that ObamaCare has left us, but that was precisely why it was so important for us to get on the bill yesterday, so Members on both sides of the aisle can offer amendments and share their ideas. Do you know how many Democrats voted to get on the bill and begin the debate and offer amendments? Zero, zip, nada. Their protestations that they somehow want to do things on a bipartisan basis really have fallen flat, as demonstrated by their own failure to act. If they were really interested in working with us to do something on a bipartisan basis, why wouldn't they take advantage of this opportunity to do so? Last night we began the process of considering amendments, including one from my colleague in Texas, Senator Cruz, who has a plan to provide people who choose a lower cost premium insurance product the opportunity to do so, as long as the State also requires a comprehensive plan as well. This is something that is ideal for many people who want an insurance safety net but don't necessarily want their health insurance to pay for their regular medical expenses or doctor visits. They can handle those through a health savings account or some other way. Later today we will continue to work toward bringing relief to millions of Americans suffering from the failure of ObamaCare. Yesterday was a big step toward ending ObamaCare and the first step toward ending the mandates, the penalties on low- and middle-class Texans who are having to choose between buying unaffordable insurance or paying a penalty that their government is forcing them to pay. We are going to end that. We are going to end the job-killing employer mandate, which is forcing employers either to lay people off or not hire additional people because they don't want to run into the additional costs required by the employer mandate. Then there is the single mom, whom I met in Tyler, TX, a few years back. She said: I want to work full time. I want to work at least 40 hours a week, but the restaurant where I work figured out that if they put me on part time, 29 hours a week, then they wouldn't be required to meet the mandates of the Affordable Care Act. What this single mother, who wanted to work full time, was forced to do because of ObamaCare was to work part time. Do you know what? She can't make it on 29 hours a week, so she has to get two jobs. Effectively, she had to go from 40 hours a week doing a job she enjoyed, which helped her pay the bills, to working two jobs in order to make ends meet. We can and we should do better, and we invite our colleagues across the aisle to join us, if they will. People keep talking about a secret process. Well, this is about as open and transparent as it gets. Everybody will have an opportunity to offer an amendment, to discuss what is in the amendment, and to vote on it. To the extent that the Senate's work product differs from what the House of Representatives provides us, we can go to a conference and work out those differences. That is how the legislative process is supposed to work. Sitting on your hands and complaining about something while offering no effort to try to help solve the problem simply boils down to hollow words. Unfortunately, that is all we have been hearing so far. We hope our colleagues will change their minds and join us. Insurance bailouts with reform are not the answer, a single-payer system is not the answer because it will bankrupt the country, but we are more than happy to entertain any reasonable proposal from our colleagues across the aisle. We will guarantee they get a chance to debate it and to have a vote on their amendment. I don't think they could ask for anything more.

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

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

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we are grinding the wheels here in Washington, DC, in the Senate very slowly, too slowly, when it comes to confirming the President's nominees, first to the Cabinet and now to the sub-Cabinet positions. When the American people elected President Trump on November 8, they knew they were electing not just one person but also his full executive branch team, most certainly when it comes to filling vital national security positions like those in the Department of Defense. But because of unprecedented delay and obstruction from our Democratic colleagues, at the current pace, it would take more than 11 years to fully staff the executive branch--and to what end? Do our Democratic colleagues object to the qualifications of these nominees? Well, the answer is, by and large, no. Most of these nominees have sailed through the relevant committees, and some were even nominated by President Obama, but that doesn't do anything to expedite the confirmation process. So I can only be left to conclude that our Democratic friends are just trying to make it more difficult for President Trump to do his job and, in the process, make it harder for us in the Senate to do ours. On Monday, we voted to end the filibuster of Patrick Shanahan, the nominee for Deputy Defense Secretary at the Department of Defense. Thankfully, we voted to confirm him, but he was confirmed by a vote of 92 to 7, so there wasn't any good-faith disagreement about his qualifications. There wasn't any real doubt about whether he would be confirmed, but our friends across the aisle insisted on burning as much time as possible, using every procedural objection they could in order to delay it. This is the same person who passed out of the Armed Services Committee by unanimous voice vote, essentially by unanimous consent. Well, if there is one thing that is indispensable in the Federal Government, it is our national security. The Department of Defense has been facing a critical shortfall in leadership, which is dangerous to the Nation, especially while we are engaged in such a vast array of conflicts around the world. We have seen only 6 of President Trump's 22 nominations confirmed, and by drastically delaying this process, our Democratic colleagues are promoting not only the waste of taxpayer dollars, but they are putting lives at risk. I recently talked to the commander of a cyber unit who said that it took months for recently appropriated money to make its way out to his unit. In the meantime, he had to make personnel cuts and forgo investing in resources that would strengthen our cyber defenses, all because we couldn't get administrative positions filled at the Pentagon. The type of drastic action this particular commander was forced to take is not unique. It is reprehensible that anyone would play politics and delay for delay's sake, especially when considering the nomination of a person who directly impacts the training and readiness of our troops. Of the 197 nominations to agencies made by the President so far, the Senate has confirmed only 48. Additionally, the Senate has confirmed only 2 of the 22 judicial nominations. This is one reason the majority leader said that we are going to spend a couple more weeks during the August recess to be here, working to get our work done. I have already heard from some of our Democratic colleagues saying: Why would the majority leader make that decision? I said: All you need to do is look in the mirror and ask that question of the Democratic leader, who is leading this unprecedented effort in obstructing and slow-walking these nominations. I suspect that they are going to come forward and say: Well, let's play nice now. Let's make a deal. The Department of Justice, for example, has only 3 out of 19 nominations confirmed. This is the Department of Justice. The Department of Health and Human Services--by the way, we have been talking a lot about healthcare. Wouldn't you think we need a full complement of nominees confirmed there? But only 3 out of 11 have been confirmed there. In November, when the people elected President Trump, they wanted him, certainly by implication, to appoint a Cabinet of qualified individuals to help guide our country and carry out the tasks and policies of the administration. I am left with the unfortunate conclusion that, really, what this is designed to do is to not accept the verdict of the voters on November 8 but to continue to obstruct this President and the executive branch by any means available in order to try to make his job harder. The problem with that is it hurts the American people. It wastes taxpayer money. It makes our country and the world more dangerous, especially when his national security nominees are not considered and not confirmed. So it really does represent, to my experience, an unprecedented unwillingness to accept the outcome of the election, and it shows contempt, I believe, for the will of the American people when it came to the election on November 8. It is easy to call this what it really is. It is an unwillingness to accept the outcome of the election, further poisoning the already toxic atmosphere here in Washington, DC, and it doesn't need to be that way. In my experience, even after tough elections, people on both sides of the aisle would generally accept the outcome. I don't know what the alternative might be but to accept the outcome and then try to work together in the best interest of the American people, try to find those areas where we do agree--we don't agree on everything, but there are areas where we do agree--and to move forward and make progress. That doesn't seem to be happening today, and it is too bad. It is unfortunate. To put this in perspective, there were only eight cloture votes of President Obama's nominees by his first August recess in 2008. For everybody's concern, the term ``cloture votes'' basically means invoking all of the procedures to delay things and make it harder to confirm nominees. Only eight times was that used when President Obama was President. By the time we reach the August recess this year, we will have had over three times as many cloture votes; that is, unnecessary obstacles placed in the way of timely confirmation of President Trump's nominees, making us jump through more hoops. It is delay for delay's sake. I believe this strategy--and it is a strategy-- is simply unconscionable and that the time-consuming parliamentary procedures and slow-walking and needless gridlock advance no interest of the American people. I can only hope people will change in the way they approach this. Maybe if they hear from their constituents, maybe if the stories are written about it or people hear about it on the news, they will call their elected representatives and say: The election is over. Accept the outcome and try to work together in the best interest of the American people. I think that is what our constituents expect of us. So this week we will press forward with two important nominations, John Bush to be U.S. circuit judge for the Sixth Circuit and David Bernhardt to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior. These are two additional, highly qualified individuals who are seriously needed in their respective roles, but it shouldn't take a whole week to confirm three nominees. That is what it takes now, given the obstruction and foot-dragging on the other side. I would urge our colleagues to end their political gamesmanship for the benefit of our country and for the American people so we can move forward doing the people's business. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have two requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday July 19, 2017, at 10 a.m. in room G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hold a ``Nominations Hearing.'' Committee on Environment and Public Works That the Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 19, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Legislative Hearing on S. 1514, the Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation (HELP) for Wildlife Act.'' Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 2 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Nominations.'' Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 19, at 10 a.m. in SD-430. We will be considering the following: Nomination of Marvin Kaplan to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board Nomination of William Emanuel to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 19, 2017, at 10 a.m. for a business meeting to consider pending committee business. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 19, 2017, upon conclusion of the preceding business meeting, in order to conduct a hearing titled ``The Postal Service's Actions During the 2016 Campaign Season: Implications for the Hatch Act.'' Committee on Veterans' Affairs The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 19, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., in SR- 418, to conduct a hearing on pending nominations. Committee on Intelligence The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 from 9 a.m. in room SH-216 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold an open hearing entitled ``Open Hearing on the Nomination of Susan Gordon to be Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence preceded by Robert P. Storch to be Inspector General of the National Security Agency, and Isabela Patelunas to be Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of the Treasury.'' Committee on Intelligence The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 from 2 p.m. in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold a Closed Hearing. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; Subcommittee on National Parks is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a hearing on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 10:15 a.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime; Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights and Global Women's Issues The Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime; Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights and Global Women's Issues is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 4:15 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``The Collapse of the Rule of Law in Venezuela: What the United States and the International Community Can Do to Restore Democracy.''