Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as in many other industries, the insurance sector, both property/casualty and life, have become more globalized than any time in history. Disasters such as 9/11 transformed the property and casualty industry. The life insurance industry has followed, with an increasing amount of insurance risk transferred to affiliates and nonaffiliates around the globe. This business model is impacted directly by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which moves the United States from a mostly global international system, where we tax American companies and individuals on their worldwide income, toward a territorial system. Under the new system, companies are to be taxed in the United States on the income derived here and are to be taxed on their foreign earnings by the nations in which that income is derived. What we are seeking to do here is to encourage enterprises to start in the United States, to expand in the United States, and to bring as many foreign operations home as they can while remaining not only competitive, but innovative leaders in creating new products and services. The new 21-percent corporate rate will help do just that. However, this bill does not take us fully to a territorial system. The bill applies a minimum tax on certain payments to foreign affiliates. At 21 percent, the U.S. can compete with virtually any nation in the world, but if some nations have a corporate rate of, say, 5 percent or less, then the new system will incentivize companies to move their operations overseas, so the bill includes a minimum tax. It is called the base erosion antiabuse tax. The first year, the base erosion tax is essentially a minimum tax of 5-percent tax without deduction for certain payments made by a U.S. company to its foreign affiliates. Starting in 2019, that minimum tax increases to 10 percent. We do not want companies moving mobile assets around the world to find the lowest corporate tax rate. However, I do not think we should be taxing enterprises on payments that never actually leave the U.S., but instead are obligations that are combined with obligations from the foreign affiliate to the U.S. parent. That is where clarification is needed as to how this base erosion tax will work in the context of U.S. insurance policies that are reinsured overseas. Under current law, reinsurance is already subject to a gross premium excise that serves as an antibase erosion tax of sorts. Adding the base erosion tax on top of that could be detrimental to these U.S. insurance companies. However, how the base erosion tax is computed may be determinative of whether the tax is tolerable. I believe that, with respect to reinsurance, the base erosion tax was intended to apply only on net payments actually made. Under certain forms of reinsurance that are commonly used in the life insurance industry, called modified coinsurance or funds withheld coinsurance, underlying investments are retained by the U.S. insurer, which is subject to tax on the earnings from the investments. Under these arrangements, the reinsurance payments are taken into account for purposes of the base erosion tax only when the U.S. insurance company actually makes payments to its foreign affiliate. My understanding of the conference report is that it intended to limit the base erosion payment to the net amount paid to the foreign reinsurer, taking into account the amounts owed by the reinsurer to the U.S. party. That result is consistent with one of the fundamental principles underlying the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017: Assets generating income should be taxed where those assets are sited. In determining the amount of base erosion payments, the amount of premium paid to the reinsurer must be offset by any return premium, ceding commission, reinsurance recovered, or other amount received the insurance company with respect to the reinsurance for which such premium is paid to the reinsurer. Moreover, this treatment is consistent with the regulatory accounting regime imposed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Consistent with those principles, base erosion payments do not include amounts paid to a foreign affiliate that are subject to U.S. income tax. For example, payments to a foreign partnership by a U.S. taxpayer that the foreign partnership certifies are effectively connected income are not base erosion payments. The income has not been shifted offshore, and there has been no erosion of the tax base.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to support the effort to pass the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution. I am on the Budget Committee, and I am pretty familiar with the document. It provides a pathway to balance. It actually has a $197 billion surplus in 2027, and it allows for tax cuts. To Republicans--and Democrats too; you are welcome to join--the only way we are ever going to meaningfully get a tax cut is to pass a budget reconciliation instruction. This budget allows us to cut taxes. I hope some Democrats will join us, but if they choose not to, we can do it with a simple majority. If we don't pass this budget, we can't cut taxes unless we get 60 votes. With our friends on the other side--I think it is going to be hard to get any Democrats for a meaningful tax cut. They are not bad people; they just see things differently. When they spend money, they think that is good. They don't worry about the deficit. When we cut taxes, the deficit is the most important thing. My belief is that not only will we not have a deficit, we will actually have a surplus because this budget does two things: It restrains spending by $5.1 trillion over the next decade, and it actually creates a system for tax cuts to spur economic growth. If we could grow the GDP number by just 1 percent, that would be trillions of dollars of revenue. To those who are interested in this, we have been growing at about 1.9 percent GDP per year over the last 8 years--right around 2, sometimes under, sometimes a bit over. The historical average since World War II has been 3.2. If we could get back to 3.2 percent GDP growth, there would be trillions of dollars coming in to the Treasury, and I believe we can. President Trump is trying to deregulate America after 8 years of heavy regulation, but he can only do so much through Executive order. Senator Sullivan, the Presiding Officer, talked about the opportunities in Alaska. I have learned a lot about Alaska. There are 750,000 people living in a State twice the size of Texas. It is beautiful as it can be. Environmentally, you are very sensitive. That is one of the qualities of Alaska you want to preserve. God has blessed Alaska with a lot of natural resources, and it would be good for the people of Alaska and the United States as a whole. Every liter of gas and barrel of oil we can extract from Alaska in an environmentally sound way is less to buy from people who hate our guts. We are going to be using oil and gas for a long time to come. I want to move to a lower carbon economy. I think that would be good for the environment and good for our economy. Alaska has been blessed with natural resources, and I think Senator Sullivan explained how sensitive they are in the extraction process. But it would be insane to take Alaska oil and gas off the table for America because in that area, Russia is all over the place, and, trust me, they don't care about the environment. One thing this budget doesn't do is it doesn't change the Budget Control Act caps. There is one member of our caucus who claims that this budget is somehow fiscally irresponsible. It is not. It actually leads to a surplus. There is nothing in this budget that allows for more defense spending. The overseas contingency operations account is money set aside for our military and State Department to deal with the wars we are fighting that are not part of the Budget Control Act. We have been doing that for years. So for anybody to suggest that this authorizes an explosion of spending on the defense side--you literally don't know what you are talking about. If you looked at the details of the budget, you would find that it cuts spending by $5.1 trillion and actually has a $197 billion surplus 10 years from now. But I want to let the body know--and the Presiding Officer will be right in that fight--that I, along with Senator McCain, President Trump, General Mattis, Senator Sullivan, Senator Blunt, and many others, am going to do everything I can to give the military more resources to fight wars we can't afford to lose. I look forward to this debate with some of my colleagues on the other side and a few on this side. Really, is it smart to have the smallest Navy since 1950? Is it really smart to have an Army 1940s-size given what is going on in the world, having fighter squadrons grounded not because the enemy shot us down but because the Congress shot us down? We are spending about 3.2 percent of GDP on defense. Historically, since World War II, it has been about 5. Tell me how you justify spending that much less today given the world we have to deal with. Where is the peace dividend? Since 2011, when sequestration was passed, the world has deteriorated. President Trump is promising to rebuild the military, give them the capability they need to keep the enemies at bay and not fight wars with one hand tied behind their back. So I will be working with Senator McCain and many others to make sure that our military is replenished; that we do have a 350-ship Navy, not 278; that we have an Army consistent with the threats--about 520,000 versus 420,000. The No. 1 job of the Congress and the Federal Government is to defend the Nation. That is a different debate. That is not part of the budget. The budget resolution doesn't change defense spending caps. Hopefully, we can do that later, working with our Democratic friends. This is the last best chance we will have to cut taxes. If this budget resolution fails, the ability to cut taxes on President Trump's watch goes away. To those of you on the Republican side who have been claiming that we need tax cuts and a simpler tax code, this is your chance. If we don't succeed now, we are going to fail for the entire term of President Trump. That will be the end of us as a party, because if you are a Republican and you don't want to simplify the Tax Code and cut taxes, what good are you to anybody? Our friends on the other side have really invested in ``the government.'' Somebody needs to be involved in American politics who would actually like to send more money to you and less money to the government in a responsible way. So I hope we are going to cut the corporate tax rate to make us competitive. We are going to double the standard exemptions so working people will have more money in their pockets. We are going to clean up some of the deductions and exemptions for the few at the expense of the many. But we can only do that if we pass a budget resolution. A final thought. From the Republican Party point of view, we have the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. We have nobody to blame in this exercise but ourselves. If you are a Republican and you are frustrated with the lack of progress, count me in. The President is a willing partner to help us repeal and replace ObamaCare and to get a healthy tax cut to grow an economy that is dying to grow. But we have to help ourselves. If we can't muster the votes necessary to pass this budget resolution to cut your taxes, then everybody who supported us for all these years should feel let down, and we will have let you down. I hope that doesn't happen. I am confident it won't. But to those Republicans who believe that a ``no'' vote is good for the future of conservatism and the future of the economic well-being of the country, I could not disagree with you more. You will never balance the budget by dealing with discretionary spending alone. We are at 2008 levels of discretionary spending. What balances the budget is entitlement reform. If you want to balance the budget, vote for Graham-Cassidy because it finally puts Medicaid on a sustainable path. We have to deal with our entitlement problem, but that is not in this budget reconciliation instruction. This instruction allows us to cut taxes with a majority-only vote and gets to balance or a surplus in 2027. From a Republican point of view, this is the most important vote we are going to cast in 2017. If we fail, that is the end of this party's ability to grow. All of those who worked hard to get us here are going to be disappointed, and they should be. We are not going to disappoint you. We are going to pass this budget resolution. We are going to cut your taxes, and we are eventually going to rebuild and replace ObamaCare, which is failing, with a block grant that gets the money and power closer to where you live, in the hands of the people you can vote for. We are going to succeed. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, is this a partisan approach to healthcare? I don't think so, if Missouri does better. There is a Democrat representing Missouri. There is a Republican representing Missouri. Here is the good news. We got the Republican on board. We appreciate the Republican. Let me tell you how this works. I like Massachusetts, I like Maryland, I like New York, I like California, but I don't like them that much to give them a bunch of money that the rest of us will not get. If you live in Massachusetts, you don't get twice the Social Security or 50 percent more than if you live in Pennsylvania. How can this happen? ObamaCare, for whatever reason, favors four blue States against the rest of us. Now, our friends in Mississippi, like South Carolina--we have a 31- percent African-American population in South Carolina--I think the highest in the country is Mississippi. Under this block grant approach, our friends in Mississippi get a 900-percent increase. How can that be? Well, that is money that was going someplace else other than Mississippi. So what have we learned about ObamaCare? Rural poor, particularly African Americans, don't do so well. These four States--New York, California, Massachusetts, and Maryland, they have a lot of high wage earners. We have some rural poor States. Missouri is a very wonderful State, with big cities and rural areas. How do you get more money? Well, under this formula, you are getting money that would have gone to the four other States. So 50 to 138 percent of poverty, and there are 45 million people in America who fall in that demographic. We can figure out how many live in Missouri. We use that as the basis for the formula. You are not limited to spending the money on 50 to 138 percent of poverty, but that seems to be a fair way to redistribute the money. By 2026, the goal is, no matter where you live, Missouri, South Carolina, or California, you are going to get the same basic contribution from the Federal Government, regardless of where you live. What a novel idea. That means places like Missouri and South Carolina do better. To our friends in New York and California, we are giving you a long time to come down. To our friends in Massachusetts--and we have a great Republican Governor--I don't know how to explain the system where you get that much more money than everybody else. The goal is for you to have time to adjust, become more efficient, and Charlie Baker can do this. Is it unfair for people like me, and Louisiana and Missouri, to say: No four States should get twice the amount of money for their population. I am trying to fix the problem in ObamaCare. Who should get the money is another question. Should some bureaucrat you will never meet in Washington be in charge of your healthcare or should somebody you actually know and vote for be in charge of your healthcare? The block grant has a beautiful concept to it. The people we empower, you actually live with them, and you vote for them. If you don't like ObamaCare and, God knows, if you don't like BernieCare, whom do you complain to? You can tell me: I don't like ObamaCare. My premiums have gone up. My deductibles are going through the roof. You can complain to me all day long, and I will call somebody up who could care less what I think. Now, if you have South Carolina responsible for the money instead of some bureaucrat in Washington, let me tell you what would happen. You would call me up, say: Hey, listen, this is not working for my family. I will find out who the statehouse person is, and we will call them together, and I guarantee you the Governor will listen to you because the Governor wants you to vote for him or her. The bottom line is, the concept of who should be in charge of your healthcare is what this is all about. Our friends on the other side deserve a great compliment. You know where you are going on healthcare. You have a plan to get there. I just don't agree with your plan, and I don't agree with where you are taking the country. But I will say this for you: You have a plan. I will say this to my Democratic colleagues: When it comes to your ideas, you fight like tigers. I remember voting on ObamaCare on Christmas Eve, for God's sake, and we would have been here on Christmas Day if that is what it would have taken for Harry Reid to have passed ObamaCare. Now, on our side, have we done everything we can to repeal ObamaCare? They did everything they could to pass it. President Trump is now behind this bill. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate it very much. Without your voice, we cannot succeed. With your voice, we will be successful, but it is going to take more than a letter. Get on the phone. Start calling people. Obama did. Senator McConnell was very good today at lunch, saying that this is a good idea and that we need to get behind it. A CBO score is necessary. I am sure there are a lot of good people at the CBO, but if I had one place to go before I died, it would be at the CBO because you live a long time. We need to get the CBO to score things in a timely fashion. To my friends at the CBO, this is a block grant. We are going to spend $1.2 trillion in the next decade--not more, not less. I didn't do that well in math, but I can figure out how much we are going to spend. I don't mean to be super critical, but we have not had scores on the Portman language or on the Cruz language in 8 weeks. Let me tell my Republican friends, if you are upset about our not successfully repealing and replacing ObamaCare after 7 years, count me in. We tried, and we were one vote short. We have 17 days left. What would the Democrats have done? They would have been fighting. There would have been no August break. We would have been right here on this floor. We would have been arguing about their view of healthcare. So I am encouraged that our leadership is going to push the CBO and get behind this bill. I am encouraged that the President came out for the bill. The Vice President, above all others in the administration, has been on the phone, calling Governors. We have over 15 Governors now on the Republican side who are saying: Give me the money. Give me the power. I can do a better job than some bureaucrat in Washington. To the other Republican Governors, check it out for your States, but here is what I would ask you to consider. The money that you are getting from ObamaCare is unsustainable. It is a false promise. It is going to collapse. We can never match that system because that system is unsustainable, and it is going to fail. What have I learned about Republican Governors? Most of them practice what they preach, and some of them have been hard to get on board. It is almost like crack cocaine, in terms of ObamaCare dollars. I am telling you right now, Republican Governors and Democratic Governors, that this system is going to collapse in Washington. There is not enough money to keep it afloat, and I am not going to spend good money after bad. This is a chance for you, at the State level, to have control over funds and for us to be as flexible as we possibly can be in our designing systems that make sense for your States. If California wants to go to single-payer healthcare, it can. If it wants to reimpose the employer mandate and the individual mandate, it can. We will repeal the individual mandate and the employer mandate for the country at large, but if you want to put it back in place, you can. Here is the good news. California cannot take the rest of us down the tubes with them, and we will have the debate in California about what works and what does not. Give South Carolina, Louisiana, and Missouri the space they need to design healthcare based on their individual demographics. You cannot spend the money on football stadiums. You have to spend it on healthcare. You have to take care of people who are sick. There are guardrails around this block grant, but innovation will flourish. Under ObamaCare, where is the incentive to be innovative? All you need to do is print more money. Under BernieCare, there is zero incentive to be creative. Just tax the rich. This is what happens. We go from four States getting 30-something percent of the money and representing 20 percent of the population to where, basically, everybody gets the same. Let's talk about Medicaid. Bernie Sanders, who is a good man with a good heart, is an avowed socialist. He is the most honest guy in this building. If you left it up to Bernie, we would have a rowboat for a Navy, a gun for the Army, a prop plane for the Air Force, and everything else would be spent on entitlements. Most of us are not in that camp. As to Medicaid, it is a program for low-income Americans to help them with their healthcare. There is a State match. Right now, we are spending almost $400 billion on Medicaid. By 2027, we are going to be spending over $650 billion. That is more than we spend on the military right now--with no end in sight. So we do two things in this bill. We tell the States that we are going to give them more flexibility. This is what we spend on the military--$549 billion under sequestration. I hope that number goes up, but, by 2027, we are going to spend more money on Medicaid, let alone Medicare, than we do on the military. That is just unsustainable. So what do we do? We keep Medicaid in place as it is today. We try to give more flexibility because Indiana was a good example of what can happen if you give States the flexibility to help poor people. The one thing about Medicaid that I do not like is that, if you get a headache, you can ride to the emergency room, and we will pay a big Medicaid bill. I want to put Medicaid people into managed care. I want them to have some ownership over their healthcare. If you smoke, then that is something that ought to be considered in terms of cost. I like copayments. I want to treat fairly the people who are low-income and poor, but all of us need to be responsible for our healthcare. Rather than having a Medicaid Program that just writes checks no matter what the outcomes are, we are going to, in year 8, begin to slow down the growth of Medicaid. It grows faster than medical inflation. Medical inflation is what it costs for you and your family. Medicaid is way beyond that. Why? Because it is inefficient. We have proven at the State level that you can get a better bang for your buck from Medicaid. The bottom line is that the first block grant begins to slow the growth of Medicaid to make it affordable for the rest of us and incentivize innovation in year 8. If we do not do that, here is what will happen to the country. By 2038, all of the tax money that you send to Washington will go to pay the interest on the debt, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. There will not be one penny for the Department of Education or the Department of Defense. That is how quickly these programs are growing. So we do two good things. We put Medicaid on a more sustainable path because it is an important program, and we allow flexibility in order to get better outcomes for the taxpayer and the patient. What a novel idea. The second block grant is money that would have been spent by a bureaucrat in Washington. Under the first Republican proposal, you would get a refundable tax credit to go out and try to buy insurance somewhere, and we would give insurance companies money so that they would not collapse on the ObamaCare exchanges. Instead of giving a refundable tax credit to an individual to buy a product that is going to go away because ObamaCare will not work and instead of giving a bunch of money to the insurance companies to prop them up, we are going to take that same amount of money and give it back to the States so that, by 2026, they will all get the same basic contribution. Now, what did we do? We repealed the individual mandate and the employer mandate. That is $250 billion in savings. The States can reimpose it if they would like. That is up to the States. We repealed the medical device tax because that hurts innovation. We left the other ObamaCare taxes in place. There is no more taking from the poor and giving to the rich. I wish that we would not have to do that, but we need the money to transition in a fair and sound way to a State-centric system. To my friends on the other side, we leave the taxes in place. We just give the money to somebody else. It is called State control, local control, not Washington-based healthcare. We do it in a way in which, basically, everybody gets the same contribution from the Federal Government. What a novel idea. Now, to President Trump, without you, we cannot do this. Your pen will be the one that signs the law if we can ever get it to your desk. You said today that you would veto BernieCare. Let me tell everybody in America not to worry. Single-payer healthcare will never get through the Republican-controlled House, and we have the majority in the Senate. Mr. President, we are not going to need you to veto single-payer healthcare. What we need you to do is to put in place a new system to stop the march toward single-payer healthcare because, if we do not change where we are going, the Federal Government is going to own it all from cradle to grave. On your watch, you can stop that. Once we get the money and the power out of Washington, that will be the end of single-payer healthcare. Once people know that they have somebody to respond to their needs at the State level versus some bureaucrat they will never meet, there will be no going back to Washington-based healthcare. President Trump, you have the chance in your first term to set us on a new path: healthcare that is closer to the patient, money based not on where you live but parity, and innovation versus bureaucracy. What a legacy it would be. For that to happen--and I know you are busy with hurricanes and North Korea--you are going to have to get on the phone, and you are going to have to help us sell this. I believe you will, and I know you can, and I am asking you to do it. To Senator McConnell, thank you for what you said today. Thank you for being willing to push this forward. To my colleagues on this side, there are three options left for America: propping up ObamaCare, which will never work; BernieCare, which is full-blown single-payer healthcare; or this block grant approach. I ask this question: Who are we, and what do we believe as Republicans? Our Democratic friends are pretty clear on who they are and what they believe when it comes to healthcare. Here is what I believe. Send the money home. Send the money back to where the patient lives. Put it in the hands of doctors and hospitals in the communities and make sure that the people in the State are responsive to the needs of the individuals in that State. Replace a bureaucrat with an elected official. You will improve quality, and outcomes will be better, and it will be more fiscally sustainable. At the end of the day, that Governor, whoever he or she might be, who can figure out quality healthcare in a sustainable fashion, will not only get reelected, but other people will copy what he does. If we leave the money and power here, there is never going to be any innovation. It is always going to be more money. Single-payer healthcare only works with a printing press--with unlimited dollars. Just keep printing the money. A block grant will bring out the best in America. It will create better outcomes for patients, and it will take us off the path of becoming Greece, because this is where we are headed. Senator Cassidy was a doctor in a low-income, nonprofit hospital. He knows more about this than I could ever hope to learn. There is a reason that I did not go to medical school. I could not get in. I just cannot tell you how impressed I have been with Bill Cassidy's understanding of how healthcare works for average, everyday working people. He has dedicated his life to that segment of the population. Rick Santorum. There would be no Graham, Cassidy, Heller, Johnson without Rick. Rick said: Lindsey, we did this with welfare reform. They said that we could not do it, but we block-granted the money and unleashed innovation at the State level, and not one dime of extra spending has occurred since 1996 because we were generous in the beginning. The Governors figured it out. It was a better way of dealing with the welfare population. I had a bill to opt out of ObamaCare, and Rick said: Why don't you just do a block grant like we did with welfare reform. So, when you look at it, it is such an elegant, fair, commonsense solution to a complicated problem. Dean Heller. Dean Heller is in the fight of his political life. A lot of people around here--and I understand it; I am included sometimes-- just wish hard problems would go away. This is a tough business to be in. Dean was told by all of the experts--and he said this today--to just lay low. Do not get your fingerprints on this healthcare debate. There are no winners. Healthcare is too complicated. Just stay away from this fight. Lay low. Dean told us today in the conference: I didn't get elected to lay low. If we don't now get healthcare right, all of us are going to pay later. So Dean Heller, who is in one of the most competitive seats in the country, said: Sign me up. Nevada gets 30 percent more money under this formula. It gets more control than ObamaCare would ever give them. Dean Heller believes that Medicaid is worth saving and that this is a way to save it. With the second block grant, 20 percent can be used to help traditional Medicaid. The bottom line is that Dean Heller stood up today and said: Nobody in this conference has a tougher race than I do. Count me in because this is the right thing to do. Ron Johnson. If there were ever a ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' it is Ron Johnson. This is his last term. If you want to have an interesting evening, do not go to dinner with Ron Johnson and Bill Cassidy. They are wonderful people, but they know numbers, and they love to talk about details and how systems work. Ron Johnson has brought energy and a can-do attitude to this debate. He is the closest thing that I have seen in a long time to ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' He is not going to run again. He is doing what he thinks is best for Wisconsin and the Nation. Scott Walker. If it were not for Scott Walker, we would not be here today. Scott Walker said: I have been talking about federalism all of my political life, and this is the first time that I have seen somebody in Washington try to empower me here since welfare reform. Scott Walker has been the moving force on the Governors' side. As for the Governor of Utah, Mike, you should be proud of him. He is a really great guy. Mike, thank you for working with us to make this as flexible as possible. Senator Lee has really driven this very hard in order to give as much flexibility to the State level as possible. Thank you. Your Governor has been just absolutely awesome. Asa Hutchinson in Arkansas stepped up. Our good friend Governor Bryant in Mississippi is all in. I could go on and on and on. I know John McCain likes the concept of the block grant. John McCain wants to reform healthcare. He knows what happens to Arizona under ObamaCare, and this is our last, best chance to stop what I think is a march toward single-payer healthcare. I hope we can find a way to get our friends in Arizona at the State level on board because ObamaCare is failing your State. If we don't find a replacement--and I think this is a great replacement for the people of Arizona--everything is going to collapse. So to all of those on the staff who have spent hours and hours and hours listening to us change our minds, do it one way, do it another: Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have been in politics now--I came in a little bit before the Presiding Officer in the Senate. I have worked on a lot of things. I have had a lot of fun, a lot of disappointments. I don't think I have worked on anything more important than this. It has been fun. It has been frustrating. I believe this is our last, best chance to get healthcare on a sustainable footing and to stop the march toward single-payer healthcare, which I believe with all my heart will reduce quality and explode costs, and that doesn't have to be the choice. To my Republican friends: They know what they are for. Do we know what we are for? They are committed to their causes. Are we equally committed to ours? I hope the answer is yes. And if we can get 50 of us here, I will make a prediction. A few of them over there are going to sign on because their State does so well. There are some Democratic Senators who are my dear friends who are going to have to turn down more money and more power for their State to keep the status quo. I can tell my colleagues this about bipartisanship. I am a pretty big believer in bipartisanship. I have taken my fair share of beatings-- working on immigration; I believe climate change is real. I have done deals, and I understand that you have to work together. But our friends on the other side are never going to vote for anything that fundamentally repeals and replaces ObamaCare. They just can't do it. They are not bad people; they are just locked into a different way. And their way is that the government makes these decisions, not the private sector. My belief is that healthcare closer to the patient, like government, is better healthcare. This is the last, best chance we will have to stop the march toward single-payer healthcare. Mr. President, we need you. We need the weight of your office and the strength of your voice. Senator McConnell, thank you for what you said today, but all hands on deck. Our friends on the other side moved Heaven and Earth to pass ObamaCare. I am going to do everything I can to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with something that is not good for Republicans but is good for Americans, because many Democratic States, including Illinois, do far better under this approach than under ObamaCare, and all of us will do better than BernieCare. If we don't stop this now, single-payer healthcare is the fate of the Nation. To all who have been involved, thank you very much. We can do this. We have the time. Do we have the will? I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, let me just tell my colleagues where I am coming from. Under the current system--ObamaCare as we know it--the money to help people buy insurance and the money for Medicaid expansion, those two pools of money--here is what happens under ObamaCare: California is 21.39 percent of all the money, and they are 12.15 percent of the population. Maryland gets 2.35 percent of the money, and they are 1.86 percent of the population. Massachusetts gets 6.67 percent of all the money, and they are 2.11 percent. New York gets 8.62 percent, and they are 6.11 percent. That is a lot of math for a guy who didn't do well in math. So 39 percent of all the money goes to four States that represent 22 percent of the population. I like these people. They are all good Americans. I just don't like them that much. The bottom line is, the rest of us--46 States--get 60 percent to divide up among ourselves. How can that be? Senator Cassidy explained that the current system is weighted to the benefit of four States at the expense of the rest of us. I would like to fix that, and if you don't live in one of those States, you will want to fix it too. What I want to do is take the money that we are spending under ObamaCare and block grant it back to the States so that we can level out the disparity in funding but go even further and allow people in each State to develop healthcare systems that meet the needs of that State. If you are for single-payer healthcare, you will hate this idea because that will be the end of single-payer healthcare because the money and the power will leave Washington and it will go back to people where they live. It will be healthcare closest to the patient. So if you believe that government is better--closer to the voter, closer to the people--if the idea of government close to the people is a good idea, I would argue that healthcare closer to the patient is a good idea. I regret we didn't think of this sooner. What Senator Cassidy said is that our goal is to make sure that no matter in what State you live, you are going to get X amount of dollars, and it is going to be fairly equal no matter where you live. If you live in a State with a unique disease problem or an aged State, you will get a little bit more because you will need a little bit more. The model we have today is really disproportionate. It doesn't work. It is driving up healthcare costs all over the country. People are dropping coverage because the ObamaCare mandates are too expensive. So what we are doing is we are leaving the taxes on the wealthy in place. To my conservative friends, I am sorry, but that is what we are going to have to do to make this work. We eliminate the medical device tax because that hurts innovation. We eliminate the individual employer mandate because that stifles the whole idea of having creativity at the State level. We leave the taxes on the wealthier Americans in place. We are able to take that money, plus money we would give to insurance companies to stabilize the national market, and block grant it back to the States with a formula that is fairer. Let me tell my colleagues what that would look like. Let me drill down to what two States do, by the way. California and Massachusetts by themselves are 28 percent of all ObamaCare money and 14 percent of the population. Let's look at Alabama. Beginning in 2020, you are going to get 200 percent more. How can that be? It is where you start from. The people in Alabama are going to get a lot more money because when you look at the money coming through the ObamaCare system to the good people of Alabama and how we spend per patient, you are way behind. You are going to get a lot of money to catch up with what should be the national average. Our friends in California are going to get a 38-percent reduction, but we are going to give you time to adjust for that. There is going to be a wind-down period. It is not going to happen overnight. There will be a fund that can help you if you can prove you have a unique population of people who are sicker and older. To my good friend from Colorado, you get 42 percent more. How can that be? Under ObamaCare, the money that was going to these four States gets a little higher percentage if you block grant. Not only will you get 42 percent more money than ObamaCare would give the good people of Colorado, you actually get a chance to spend the money unique to the needs of Colorado. Let's go to Oklahoma, since we have a guy from Oklahoma here whom we like a lot. You get 200 percent. Congratulations. Why do you get 200 percent? You are starting way behind everybody else. The bottom line is, we want to catch you up beginning in 2020. We are going to have to take away from some other people because they are hoggish. New York, California, we want to help you transition, but the rest of us are not going to sit on the sidelines anymore and watch you take most of the money. We are going to begin to level this out. Where is South Carolina? I have a unique interest in that State. How did we do? We get 123 percent. That shows you where we start from. In about 6 years, we are all going to meet. It is going to take 6 or 7 years to level this all out, and we are going to get more. Other States are going to get a little bit less. The ones that are about where they need to be will get about the same. The big benefit for all of us is, the people in your backyard get to make decisions about healthcare rather than a Washington bureaucrat whom you will never meet. The big thing about this to me is, you have a voice now as a consumer. Right now, if you don't like your healthcare under ObamaCare, whom do you complain to? Do you complain to your Congressman? I guess your Senator. At the end of the day, most of ObamaCare is administered by the Federal Government through a bureaucracy. We don't manage healthcare in the Senate. Under this construct, the same amount of money is going to go back to your backyard, and you will get a better deal if you are starting on the tail end of this now. If you don't like what is going on in your State, you can actually complain to somebody whom you vote for in the statehouse. You can go to your State capital and complain to your Governor. The likelihood that the person you are complaining to goes to the same hospital as you and your family goes up. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to complain to somebody who is in the same boat you are who goes to the same healthcare network because they live in your neighborhood? To me, the most innovative thing we could do in healthcare in America is allow people in their own backyard to design healthcare systems that meet the unique needs of that State and give consumers a voice that really can be heard because, under this model, your statehouse and your Governor are going to have a lot of flexibility. They can't spend it on roads and bridges. They have to spend it on healthcare. If they get really efficient, the savings they will accrue stays in that State to even do more for healthcare so you will have a race for efficiency rather than just a race to write bigger and bigger checks. The big benefit to me is, if you are a healthcare consumer, you will finally have somebody you know you can talk to about what works and what doesn't. We are about to talk about how we end this debate. I hope this idea will be looked at by not just Republicans but Democrats. If you are from West Virginia--our good friend Joe Manchin--West Virginia gets 43 percent more dollars under the block grant than they would ObamaCare. West Virginia gets to determine how to spend that money more under the block grant than they would under ObamaCare. You can't spend it on roads and bridges, but you have to spend it on healthcare. There are three things we are trying to achieve. We are not going to let four States take most of the money, a disproportionate share of the money. Over time, we are going to create a system--no matter where you live--you are going to get roughly the same amount of money from the Federal Government, but the money comes in a bock grant so the people in that State can use it without being dictated to by a Washington bureaucrat as long as it is on healthcare. The biggest thing we give you is a chance to have a voice about your healthcare because the people in charge of your healthcare will be in your own backyard, not in Washington, somebody who doesn't know you, you will never get to meet, and quite frankly doesn't understand your world. I hope we can rally around this. These are not 100 percent done numbers. Generally speaking, this is pretty accurate. It came from the Labor-HHS people. It may change a little bit, but when you start the debate with four States getting 40 percent of the money, clearly most of us are going to get more. When you see these big numbers like our friends in Oklahoma and Montana, the reason you are getting so much more now is that the current system leaves you behind in an unfair way. My goal is, if you live in Oklahoma, New York, and California, the Federal Government is going to provide healthcare resources as equal as possible, but those resources will be managed by people in the State, not bureaucrats in Washington. I hope over the coming day and a half that maybe we can rally around an idea that we should have started with to begin with. I don't mind being generous when it comes to putting money on the table to make sure people can afford healthcare. The tradeoff is as follows. We leave most of the ObamaCare taxes in place because we need a funding stream to level out the inequities. We are going to have a tax cut bill later. I want a flatter tax, a smaller corporate tax, and lower individual taxes, but this revenue stream coming from wealthy Americans is going to be used in a different fashion. It is going to provide resources to States that they can manage, unlike ObamaCare where one-size-fits-all. To me, this is a tradeoff. To the people in West Virginia, I am not asking you to take less and have a tax cut for rich people. We are going to keep the wealthy taxes in place. I am asking the people of West Virginia to take 43 percent more money. It is not a trick. Use it wisely. Thank you all. I hope over the next day we can inform you about how your State benefits. To those States who are going to have to ramp down, the only reason you are ramping down is you are taking so much more from the rest of us. Quite frankly, that is not fair. We want to be fair to you and give you a chance to adjust, but the rest of us should stand up and say it is not fair that an American in California or New York or Massachusetts--all fine States--gets 40 percent of the money. That is not right. It is not right to have a one-size-fits-all healthcare system because you will not get the best product. The best product will come from innovation. Your strongest voice will come from having a say to people who live in your same community, talking to a politician who sends their kids to the same hospital you do. That is what this is all about. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the BMW Group Plant Spartanburg in Spartanburg, SC. Twenty-five years ago, BMW decided to make an investment in South Carolina. Today I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the risk and vision it took to begin this venture. The Spartanburg workforce has a world-renowned reputation and is second to none. Without this workforce, we would have nothing to celebrate, so it is with great pride that I extend my sincerest gratitude for all of their efforts. In addition to the contributions BMW has made to South Carolina, we are also celebrating the strong relationship between Germany and the Palmetto State. Globalization and trade are crucial to South Carolina's economic success and play a huge role in maintaining a positive relationship with the United States and Germany. I am proud to be an owner of a made-in-South Carolina BMW X5 because it represents all that makes our country great. BMW has been a gift that keeps on giving for South Carolina, and South Carolina has been a wise investment for BMW. Thank you to all the hard-working men and women of South Carolina who have made this day a possibility. It is because of their dedication and diligence that South Carolina continues to be a prime destination for companies looking to invest and grow.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to join with Senator McCain very quickly. At 71 to 27, on September 21 of last year, we voted to approve tank sales to Saudi Arabia because they need more weapons and equipment to counter the Iranian aggression in Yemen and other places. Most of the people who are now going to vote against precision-guided weapons that will reduce civilian casualties voted for tank sales. This $500 million carved out of this package gives Saudi Arabia a qualitative edge on the battlefield against Iranian proxies who could care less about civilian casualties. It is the most upside-down thinking I have ever seen, and many of you over there actually approved this because it was worked on before President Trump became President. So it is really disheartening to see you support President Obama's tank sales but that you are not going to support President Trump's selling weapons, which gives us an advantage over Iran in Saudi Arabia and actually reduces civilian casualities. Secretary Mattis said it the best: Iran would appreciate killing this deal and taking these weapons off the table. I urge everybody in here, if you are serious about standing up to Iran, stand with Saudi Arabia, as imperfect as they are.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I take the floor to strenuously argue against the proposition being pushed by Senators Paul, Murphy, and others to deny arms sales of about $500 million to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The package they are trying to exclude from the $110 billion arms deal is precision-guided munitions that would be used by the F-15s, a package of Joint Direct Attack Munitions, Paveway laser-guided bombs for Saudi Tornado and Typhoon aircraft. The bottom line is, the package we are talking about are precision weapons the Saudi Air Force and military could use in operations against Iran's proxy in Yemen and other threats that continue to plague us. The flaws of the Saudi Government are real. They are known to me. My friends on the other side, particularly Senator Paul, constantly put Saudi Arabia and Iran on the same footing. I think that is a very unwise analysis. To suggest that Saudi Arabia is as bad as Iran is just missing the point, big time. The Iranian bureaucracy is the most destabilizing force in the Mideast. They have aggressively pursued military action through proxies and have been directly involved in military actions in Syria. Iran's efforts to dominate Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and now Yemen have to be pushed back. Here is what Secretary Mattis said about this proposal when I asked him the question: How would Iran view passage of this proposal limiting precision-guided weapons to the Saudis by Congress? He stated: ``I believe Iran would be appreciative of us not selling these weapons to Saudi Arabia.'' That is pretty direct. Iran would be really happy. On September 21, 2016, 71 U.S. Senators supported a tank sale to Saudi Arabia. The vote was 71 to 27. In other words, 71 U.S. Senators rejected Rand Paul's proposal to stop the sale of tanks. I would argue that a tank is not nearly as much of a precision weapon as the weapons we are talking about here to be given to the Saudi Air Force. If we are worried about collateral damage in Yemen, I understand the concern. Precision weapons would help that cause, not hurt it. We have to understand whom we are dealing with in Yemen. We are dealing with Iran. Saudi Arabia has a border with Yemen. The Iranians are backing a force called the Houthis to bring down a pro-Western government in Yemen. From a Saudi perspective, everywhere you look you see Iran encroaching throughout the Mideast. The bureaucracy in Iran is the biggest threat to the world order, and that is saying a lot, given the way the world is. I say that with confidence because what Iran is doing is trying to destabilize the Mideast in an unprecedented fashion. Our Arab allies are tired of it, and now is the time to stand with them--with their imperfections-- against Iran and their hostilities. This $500 million chunk of the $110 billion weapons sale is absolutely essential to the Saudi Air Force to get these weapons, not only to minimize casualties but to win the fight against the aggressive nature of Iran in Yemen and other places. I don't know where we are going with Iran, but the President has said the current nuclear deal is absolutely a terrible deal. He is right. This deal locks in a march toward a nuclear weapon by the Iranians if they don't cheat. They don't have to cheat. In 10 or 15 years, the agreement allows them to enrich and reprocess without limitation, so this deal has to be replaced. I hope we don't go to war with anyone, but if we go to war, I want allies that are capable to help us in the fight. We complain about our Arab allies not doing enough. When they want to do more, we say no to them. Guess what. No wonder people believe America is an unreliable partner. We say one thing and do another. To my Democratic colleagues: You were OK with voting to help President Obama increase the capability of the Saudi Army at a time when it was in our national security interest. What has changed between September 21 and today? What geopolitical situation has changed that all of a sudden Iran is no longer the threat they were in September of last year and Saudi Arabia is less reliable? Nothing, other than the election of Donald Trump. I have been a critic of Donald Trump-- President Trump--when I thought it was necessary for the good of the country, but all I can say is, this wholesale defection by Democrats really is disturbing. It is undermining, I think, our national security interests when it comes to containing Iran. It is sending the worst possible signal we could be sending to our Arab allies at a time when we need them the most. I don't question people's motives; I question their judgment. Here is my problem. I had no problem helping President Obama because I believe Saudi is the bulwark against Iranian expansion. Our allies in Saudi Arabia are imperfect, but they do share intelligence with us, they are in the fight, and we need to help them because it is in our interest to help them. You had absolutely no problem helping them when it was President Obama's idea. Everything Trump you seem to be against. That is absolutely disappointing, and quite frankly despicable. To my Republican colleagues: Rand Paul has been consistent. I respect his consistency. I just completely disagree with him. If you think containing Iran and keeping them from toppling Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon is not in our national interest, you are making a huge mistake. The last thing we want is the Iranian Ayatollah to march through the Mideast and start spreading his form of radical Shi'ism in the backyards of all of our Arab allies. So I cannot urge this body more to reject this ill-conceived idea. It is $500 million out of a $110 billion package. It is the kind of weapons that will matter on the battlefield. It will lessen civilian casualties, which is a noble goal, and will also give capabilities to the Saudis to more effectively contain Iran that is marching through Yemen, through their proxies, the Houthis. General Mattis--Secretary Mattis has it right. Iran would be appreciative of our not selling those weapons to Saudi Arabia. We are going to sanction Iran this week, I hope, for what they have done outside of the nuclear agreement. Since the nuclear agreement was passed, they have humiliated our sailors. They captured them on the high seas and humiliated them. I don't remember Saudi Arabia doing that. They are test-firing missiles in the violation of a U.N. resolution that could destroy Israel and one day reach us and our allies throughout the Mideast and Europe. They are spreading their form of radical Shi'ism all through the world, all through the Mideast. The money they received from the Iranian nuclear deal is not going to build roads, bridges, and hospitals, it is increasing the lethality of the IRG and other Iranian combatant units. What we are trying to do and what President Trump is trying to do is give our allies the ability to contain the threat which is in our interest. Sanctioning Iran and denying Saudi Arabia the weapons they need to defend themselves and others against Iran is pretty inconsistent. There is a military necessity for these weapons. It will change the equation on the battlefield. It is in our interest that Iran lose this effort to take over Yemen and destabilize the Mideast at large. You have to remember that these are the same people--the Iranians--who built lethal IEDs and injected them into Iraq--IEDs that killed many, many American soldiers. This is the same regime that took over our Embassy years ago, humiliated our sailors, and chants ``death to America and Israel'' on a regular basis. Yet here we are, sitting as a legislative body, contemplating our not helping an ally who is willing to fight the threat that is posed by Iran in the Mideast. All I can say is that on September 21, 2016, almost every Democrat saw this as a good move to help Saudi Arabia. Now almost all of you are voting against an arms package that is more necessary today than it was in 2016. The only change is that we have a new President whom you hate. I was not a big fan of President Obama's, but when I thought it was right, I stood with him. President Trump is right to increase the capability of the Saudi military to deal with the Iranian aggression. There is no bigger threat to the Middle East and America, I believe, than this Iranian regime in the hands of an ayatollah who is really a religious Nazi. So I hope you will vote for what is best for America, which is to empower our allies to contain threats that we commonly enjoy. We enjoy the experience of being in the crosshairs of the Ayatollah. They want to destroy the royal family in Saudi Arabia. They want to destroy Israel, and they want to destroy us. So the idea that we are not going to help an ally that is willing to fight is just inconceivable, and the idea that we are going to vote no for an arms package because Trump is President--and all of you over there voted yes before--is disappointing. To my Republican colleagues, if you really think Iran is a threat, do not vote with Senator Paul because you are sending the wrong signal. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate South Carolina's Fort Jackson, as the 5 millionth soldier has just completed the Basic Combat Training, BCT, Program. Fort Jackson is located in Columbia, SC, and has a deep and proud history. For 100 years, Fort Jackson has helped the U.S. Army train and fulfill needs for disciplined and skilled soldiers in times of war and peace. As the U.S. Army's largest location for BCT, Fort Jackson is responsible for training half of the entire Army's BCT population. Fort Jackson also provides an array of services outside of BCT, including the U.S. Army's Drill Sergeant School and Soldier Support Institute. Today I join the citizens of South Carolina in recognizing Fort Jackson, the soldiers, civilians, and retirees employed there, and the soldiers who have been trained there. I also extend my deepest gratitude to these soldiers' families, as they have also served and sacrificed for our country. With the completion of each mission, Fort Jackson continues to make the Palmetto State and the U.S. Army proud. I will always be thankful for Fort Jackson's dedication to protecting our great Nation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, November 2016 marked the 100th anniversary of the founding of McCormick County, the smallest and second youngest county in South Carolina. Known as the Gem of the Freshwater Coast, McCormick's rich history dates back to before our Nation's founding. The first overt act of the American Revolution in South Carolina occurred in McCormick County, at Fort Charlotte near Mount Carmel on July 12, 1775. McCormick continued to grow after the discovery of gold in 1850 and the expansion of the railroad. Today McCormick is known for its ``Natural Pace of Life,'' with ample outdoor recreation opportunities and hospitable citizens. On behalf of South Carolina and all of us here in the Senate, I offer congratulations to the entire McCormick County community on reaching this milestone. Best wishes for continued success and prosperity.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, on a more upbeat note, the lady Gamecocks are national champions. On April 2, this past Sunday, the University of South Carolina women's basketball team beat Mississippi State 67 to 55 to end a magical season and become the national champions. This is a magical year for the State of South Carolina. We have the Clemson Tigers, who are the national football champs. Coastal Carolina University is the College World Series title holder for baseball. Now we have the lady Gamecocks as the national champs and in women's basketball. Dustin Johnson is the No. 1 golfer in America, who hurt his back today and had to withdraw from the Masters. So that was bad. This was a great year. I went to the University of South Carolina. I still have 4 years of eligibility in all sports for a reason: I was no good. My colleague who is here actually played college football, and we are both Gamecocks fans. Coach Dawn Staley came to South Carolina in 2008. She has been on three gold medal national championship teams as a player. She is now in the Hall of Fame for basketball and is one of two African-American female head coaches to win the national title in women's basketball. She is the real deal. She is a wonderful lady. A'ja Wilson, our dominating junior forward, was the MVP for the Final Four and SEC player of the year, and first team All American. All the girls played really, really hard. The men's basketball team made it to the Final Four and lost in a very tough contest. I could not be more proud of the University of South Carolina men's basketball team. Frank Martin, the men's basketball coach, is the National Coach of the Year. This is a special time in South Carolina. If you are a Gamecocks fan, you have been long suffering for a while, and our ship finally came in. So congratulations to the lady Gamecocks. I can't wait until next year. We always say that with a sense of dread, but I can't wait until next year for South Carolina, Clemson, and every other sports team in South Carolina. We are doing something right. I don't know what it is, but we are all grateful in South Carolina. I yield to my colleague, who actually played college football, and I don't think he has any eligibility left because he was good.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, when they write the history of our times, I am sure that when it comes to Senate history, this is going to be a chapter, a monumental event in the history of the Senate not for the better but for the worse. After we are all long dead and gone, somebody may be looking back and trying to figure out what happened or what motivated people. I am going to tell you what has motivated me since I have been in the Senate: an understanding that the job of a Senator, when it comes to advice and consent, is not to replace my judgment for that of the President, not to nullify the election, but to be a check and balance to make sure that the President of either party nominated someone who is qualified for the job and is capable from a character point of view of being a judge for all of us, having the intellect, background, judgment, experience to carry out the duties of a Supreme Court Justice. When President Obama won the White House, I suspected that he would pick judges who I would not have chosen, based on our different philosophies of liberal-conservative jurisprudence. This is what Greg Craig, the former White House Counsel in the Obama administration, said about Elena Kagan, who is now on the Court: ``Kagan is . . . a progressive in the mold of Obama himself.'' This is what Vice President Biden's Chief of Staff Ronald Klain said about Elena Kagan: ``Elena Kagan is clearly a legal progressive . . . [and] comes from the progressive side of the spectrum.'' I think that was an accurate description of her and Sonia Sotomayor, who both are progressive Justices who come from the progressive side of the judicial spectrum. Both are highly qualified, capable women who had stellar legal records. Even though they had outcomes I did not agree with, they were certainly in the mainstream. Both had been judges. I think he chose people I would not have chosen, but they were really highly qualified. I was the only member of the Judiciary Committee on the Republican side to vote for either Justice Kagan or Justice Sotomayor because I used a standard that I thought was constitutionally sound. I am not telling any other Senator what they should do. I am just trying to explain what I did. In the Federalist Papers, No. 76, written April 1, 1788, Mr. Hamilton said: To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President. It would portend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from state prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, and from a view to popularity. So, from Hamilton's point of view, it was a check and balance against a crony or unqualified person, someone who was popular but not qualified for the job, somebody who was supported because they were close to the President and not qualified for the job, someone who was appointed because they were a favorite son of a particular State. That would not be fair to everybody else. When you look at the history of the advice and consent clause, it is pretty clear that the Founding Fathers did not have in their minds that one party would nullify the election when the President of another party was chosen by the people when it came to Supreme Court confirmations because they chose somebody they did not agree with philosophically. I voted for Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, knowing they come from the progressive judicial pool. Neil Gorsuch is one of the finest conservatives that any Republican President could have chosen, and he is every bit as qualified as they were. His record is incredible--10\1/ 2\ years on the bench, 2,700 cases, and 1 reversal. He received the highest rating of the American Bar Association, ``well qualified,'' just like Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. To merit the committee's rating of ``well qualified,'' a Supreme Court nominee must be a preeminent member of the legal profession, have outstanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience, meet the very high standards of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament. The rating of ``well qualified'' is reserved for those found to merit the committee's strongest affirmative endorsement. By unanimous vote on March 9, the standing committee awarded Judge Gorsuch this highest rating of ``well qualified,'' just like they did for Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. He has 2,700 court decisions, 1 reversal, and praise from all areas of the law--left, right and middle. The ABA report of 900 cases describes a very thoughtful man, an incredible judge, and a good person. So I don't think anybody could come to the floor and say--even though they may disagree with the outcome--that Judge Gorsuch is not qualified, using any reasonable standard, to be chosen by President Trump. He is every bit as qualified as the two Obama appointments. So, clearly, qualifications no longer matter like they used to. Antonin Scalia--whom Judge Gorsuch, hopefully, will soon replace as Justice Gorsuch--was confirmed by the Senate 98 to 0. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 96 to 3. I would argue that you could not find two more polar opposite people when it comes to philosophy than Justice Ginsburg and Justice Scalia. They became very dear friends, but nobody in their right mind would say there is not a difference in their judicial philosophy. Strom Thurmond, my predecessor, a very conservative man himself, voted for Ms. Ginsburg. Clearly a conservative would not have chosen her because she was general counsel of the ACLU. I can tell you that Ted Kennedy and other people on the progressive side of the aisle would not have voted for Antonin Scalia based on philosophy. Something has happened in America from 1986 to 1993. The Constitution hasn't changed. Something has changed. I think the politics of the moment have taken the Founding Fathers' concept and turned it upside down. From the time that Scalia was put on the Court and Ginsburg was put on the Court, everything has changed. I was here when the first effort to filibuster judicial nominations was made in earnest. In the first term of Bush 43, there was a wholesale filibuster on the circuit court nominees of President Bush. I was part of the Gang of 14 that broke the filibuster. We lost a couple nominees but we did move forward. We said there would be no further filibuster of judges unless there were extraordinary circumstance. That allowed Alito and Roberts to go forward. Both of them got a good vote. On Alito we had to get cloture, but we got 78 votes. Clarence Thomas was probably the most controversial pick in my lifetime. If you can remember that hearing, it was front page news every day and on TV every night. Not one Democratic Senator chose to filibuster him. He got an up-or-down vote and he passed 52 to 48. They could have chosen to require cloture, but they didn't. So this is the first time in the history of the Senate that you have a successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. Abe Fortas was filibustered to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by almost an equal number of Democrats and Republicans because of ethical problems, and he eventually resigned. So we are making history today--the first successful filibuster in the history of the Senate to deny an up-or-down vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court. It breaks my heart that we are here. I don't know what to do other than to change the rules to have some sense of fairness. I can't believe that Judge Gorsuch is not qualified by any reasonable standard. I voted for Sotomayor and Kagan. Nobody even asked for a cloture vote. They went straight to the floor. One got 62 votes or 63 votes, and the other got 68 votes. I don't know why we can't do for Judge Gorsuch what was done for Sotomayor and Kagan. We keep hearing about Judge Garland. Judge Garland is a fine man and would have been a very good Supreme Court Justice. Justice Scalia died in February of 2016 after three primaries were already held. The nominating process was well on its way for picking the next President. So this was an election year. I remember what Joe Biden said in 1992, the last year of Bush 41's term, when there was the suggestion that somebody might retire in the election year, and he said, basically: If someone steps down, I would highly recommend that the President not name someone, not send a name up. If he, Bush, did send someone up, I would ask to seriously consider not having a hearing on that nominee. It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what Vice President Biden said when he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1992. That made sense. President Trump put a list of names out that he would choose from if he became President, which was historic. Part of the contest in 2016 was about the Supreme Court. I have no problem at all saying that, once the campaign season is afoot, we will let the next President pick. That is no slam on Judge Garland. I have zero doubt that if the shoe had been on a different foot, there would not have been a different outcome. I can't imagine Harry Reid being in charge of the Senate in 2008 and allowing President Bush, in the last year, to nominate somebody in the Court and that they would approve that decision once the campaign season had started in 2008. I say that knowing that it was Senator Reid who chose to change the rules in 2013, which broke the agreement of the Gang of 14 in part. Here is what Harry Reid said in 2005: The duties in the U.S. Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in the document does it say the Senate has a duty to give the Presidential nominee a vote. All I can say is that in the 100-year history of the Senate, from today going backward, there has been one person put on the Court when the President was of one party and the Senate was held by the other party and a vacancy occurred in the last year of a Presidential term. We have done nothing that would justify Judge Gorsuch to be treated the way he has been treated, and he has been treated pretty badly. Here is what Nancy Pelosi said: ``If you breathe air, drink water, take medicine, or in any other way interact with the courts, this is a very bad decision.'' All I can say is that Judge Gorsuch does not deserve that. That is a political statement out of sync with the reality of who this man is and the life he led, and it is that kind of attitude that has gotten us to where we are today. I can also say that there is blame on my side too. Nobody has clean hands completely on this. When Justice Sotomayor was nominated, she made a speech to the effect that a White man would have a hard time understanding what life is like for minorities. That was taken to believe that she somehow could not be fair to White men. That was a speech she gave that was provocative, but I never believed it was an indication that she somehow was prejudiced against White men. The reason I concluded that was because anybody who had known her, including White men, said she was a wonderful lady. I remember Elena Kagan. The attack on our side was that she joined with the administration of Harvard to kick the ROTC unit off campus. Somehow that made her unpatriotic. My view was that it was the position of a very liberal school called Harvard, and no one could ever convince me that Elena Kagan was unpatriotic. She seemed to be a very nice, highly qualified lady, and that decision by Harvard could not be taken to the extreme of saying that she is not fit to serve on the Court. So I was able to look beyond the charges leveled at these two ladies on our side to understand who they really were. When you look at people who know these judges the best, they can tell you the most accurate information. In the case of Kagan and Sotomayor, there were a lot of people, left and right, who said they were well-qualified, fine ladies. When you look at what was said about Judge Gorsuch in the ABA report, it is just an incredible life, well lived. So here we are. We are about to change the rules. Up until 1948, it was a simple majority requirement for the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, as for most Supreme Court nominations in the history of the country, a large percentage were done based on a voice vote. It is only in modern times that we got in this political contest over the Court. It probably started with Judge Bork. There is some blame to go around on both sides, but I can say that while I have been here, I have tried to be fair the best that I know how to be. I voted for everybody I thought was qualified. I said, as for Judge Garland, let the next President decide. At the time I said that in March 2016, I had no doubt in my mind that Donald Trump would lose and that Hillary Clinton would probably pick somebody more liberal than Garland. But it made sense to me in that stage of the process to let the next President pick. The fact that we are filibustering this man says a lot about the political moment. If this were a controversial character, I might understand it better. When you look back and try to figure out what we did and how we got here, I can say that we took one of the best people that President Trump could have nominated--somebody I would have chosen if I had gotten to be President. I think Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, or any of us would have chosen Neil Gorsuch, and he was denied an up-or-down vote. That says all we need to know about the political moment. We will change the rules. It will have an effect on the judiciary, and it won't be a good one, because in the future, judges will be selected by a single party, if you have a majority with no requirement to reach across the aisle, which means the judges will be more ideological. When you have to go over there to get a few votes or when they have to come over here to get a few votes, you have to water down some of your choices and the most extreme ideological picks or a party or President are probably not going to be able to make it through. Now they will. I think what you will see over time is that the most ideological people in the Senate are going to have a lot to say about who is chosen by the President. It will change the nature of the judiciary. To the Senate itself, every Senate seat now becomes a referendum on the Supreme Court. So when we have a contest for a Senate seat, it is not just about the Senate. It is about the seat affecting the outcome of the Court, because all you need is a simple majority. Whether or not it leads to changing the legislative filibuster, which would be the end of the Senate, I don't know, but I don't think it helps. There will be a majority around here one day, a President of the same party, with control of the House, and they will get frustrated because the other side will not let them do everything they want to do, and they will be tempted to go down this road of doing away with the 60-vote requirement to pass a bill--not appoint a judge--and that will be the end of the Senate. We have made that more likely by doing this. It was more likely in 2013. I hope I am wrong, but I think we have set in motion the eventual demise of the Senate. The one thing I can say--I am optimistic, though--is that while I will vote to change the rules for this judicial nomination, I will not ever vote to change the rules for legislation. The reason I am voting to change the rules is that I do not know what I would go home and tell people as to how Sotomayor and Kagan got on the Court and Gorsuch could not, why President Obama was able to pick two people who were highly qualified and why Trump was not able to pick one person who was highly qualified. You just can't have it where one side gets the judges and the other side does not. To rectify that wrong, I guess we had to change the rules. It is not a good day. I was hoping it would never come, but it has. To the extent that I have been part of the problem, I apologize to the future. I think, at least in my own mind, I have tried to do the right thing as I saw it. I took a lot of heat for voting for their judges at a time when there was a lot of heat on our side. I am glad I did. It is not that I am not partisan--certainly, I can be. I just think history is going down a very dark path, and the Senate is going down a very dark path. There will never be another 98 votes for a Scalia or another 96 votes for a Ginsburg. That is a shame because even though they may be different, they have one thing in common: They are good people who are highly qualified to sit on the Court. I can understand why a liberal President would choose one and a conservative President would choose another. Yet what we are doing today is basically saying that in the Senate, we do not really care about election results anymore. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, for one, I want to let the people of Montenegro know that this day has been a long time coming. We would not be here had it not been for Senator McCain's constant, persuasive, passionate voice, and this day has finally arrived in the Senate. As to Senator McConnell, I want to thank him for making floor time. I regret we had to do it this way, but when one Senator objects, then, it puts the pressure on the rest of us. One Senator can stop legislation like this. It was one Senator, and he has every right to do so. But I want to thank Senator McConnell for putting aside floor time so that we can vote in the Senate to allow Montenegro to be a part of NATO. Senator McCain has traveled the world as much as anybody I know. I have been to Montenegro with him at least once, if not twice. It is a beautiful place. They share our values. They want to move forward in terms of their democracy. They want to be part of NATO. They want to be part of free markets. They want the rule of law to replace the rule of the gun. Montenegro is trying to do everything that Putin hates--where you can actually vote for your own leaders, where you can have a judicial system that works, where people can walk the streets without fear, and where the leadership doesn't steal the country blind. I want to let the people of Russia know--for those who went into the streets yesterday or the day before to protest the corruption of the Putin regime--that you have my undying respect and admiration, because I can only imagine how hard that was. For the people of Montenegro, I know they have been waiting a long time for this day to come because Russia and, generally, Putin have been trying to overthrow their government. To those people in this body who proclaim they are for freedom and liberty, here is what I suggest. If you are not for other people's freedom and other people's liberty, you will eventually lose yours. The idea that we can be safe and free and not engage the world and sit on the sidelines and watch people like Putin turn the world order upside down and not be affected is at best naive. It is worse than naive, but I want to be nice and say it is just naive. What Putin is doing throughout the world is trying to break the backs of the world order, NATO, and the European Union. He is trying to drive a wedge between the NATO countries, and he will be the biggest beneficiary of that. He is trying to break the back of the European Union. Alliances of democracy are his worst nightmare. This is a huge step in the right direction. I want to thank Senator McCain for being the most consistent voice in this body, and Senators McConnell and Schumer for allowing this vote. But our work is not done because it is one thing to vote in favor of Montenegro's entering NATO over Russia's objections. That is not enough. Senator McCain and myself, Senators Cardin and Rubio--Democrats and Republicans--all have crafted legislation to punish Russia for interfering in our elections. And they did. They are trying to break the backs of democracy in Ukraine, Georgia, and the Baltic nations. I hope the next thing we do in this body, in short order, on Russia is to punish them for their efforts to interfere and change and destabilize American democracy. I don't think they changed the outcome, but it was the Russians who did this to the Democratic Party, and I think every Republican should be equally offended. I hope we can find some time on the floor, starting in the committee, to pass a Russia sanctions bill that, I believe, would get 80 votes. This is a great step in the right direction for people in Montenegro. It is a rebuke of Putin, but it is not enough. Again, I thank Senator McCain for his leadership toward the people in Montenegro, and I know he has been worried about what is happening in America. I hope he finds some comfort in what we are doing here today. I hope the rest of the world, particularly Europe, which is in the crosshairs of Putin, will understand that America is coming back and it is coming back strongly. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Senator Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States. Let me make a few comments about the process. I would expect that the Attorney General nominee know the President before they are chosen. This idea that Senator Sessions was close to President Trump during the campaign and that it is somehow a disqualifier makes absolutely zero sense to me. The bottom line is, that is exactly the kind of people you would expect a President to pick--someone who has been on their team, someone they know, someone they believe in to carry out the duties of the office that they are nominated for. I don't have the time to go through history, but I would assume that in past nominations--particularly for Attorney General--there has been some kind of relationship between the President who nominated him and the person who is seeking the job. If that is going to be the new standard, I suggest that nobody in this body ever endorse anybody for President because apparently you can't serve in the Cabinet. That would be kind of silly. I look at this as are you qualified for the job? Our friends on the other side look at it as if you don't agree with their liberal agenda, you can't do the job. Big difference. There has been an absolute wholesale attack on everything Trump when it comes to the nominations, with a few exceptions. The basis of the attack is that they don't share the world view of our friends on the other side. That world view was litigated pretty thoroughly and you lost. What do you expect Donald Trump to do after his campaign? I expect him to do what he said he was going to do. Some of it I agree with, some of it I don't. Where I don't agree with him, I will challenge him. The one challenge I will not make against this President is to deny him the ability to pick somebody who is clearly, in my view, qualified, even though I may have differences with him on particular issues. I would say this about Senator Sessions. I have known him for 20 years almost. I have traveled throughout the world with Senator Sessions and his family. Most of the time I agree with Jeff Sessions. Sometimes I don't, but I found him to be an incredibly honorable man worthy of the job of being U.S. Senator from the great State of Alabama, reflecting the values of the people of Alabama. That is what he got elected to do, by the way. I think he will be uniquely qualified to be the Attorney General of the United States at a time of great challenge. He has been a U.S. attorney. He has been Attorney General of his State. He is a man steeped in the law. His biggest crime, I think, is that he is very conservative. That, to me, is not a disqualifier any more than being very liberal is a disqualifier. How do you think we felt when Barack Obama basically turned ObamaCare upside down with one Executive order after another every time it started stinking up in public? He would unilaterally change the law to avoid a political consequence or granting millions of people legal status with a stroke of a pen, well beyond his lane, struck down by the Court as being outside his ability as President to do. Not once did anybody on that side raise an objection. Eric Holder is a fine man. I can't remember a time when Eric Holder stood up to this runaway train in the Obama administration. Loretta Lynch is a fine woman. I can't remember one time she expressed doubt about President Obama's agenda. When it was left up to the courts to express doubt in this election, believe it or not, that had a lot to do with the way the last 8 years rolled out. This was a check-and-balance election, and you are not going to be able to undo the consequences of this election unfairly. I think it would be unfair to say that Senator Jeff Sessions is not qualified for the job at hand. Most of the attacks against Senator Sessions could be levied against almost everybody on this side of the aisle. The NAACP, according to Jeff Sessions, is one of the premier civil rights organizations in the history of the country. I think that is a fair characterization. Mr. Cornell Brooks, CEO of the NAACP, said of Senator Sessions: Senator Sessions' record throughout his career, whether in the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, as attorney general of the State of Alabama or, most recently, as the junior U.S. Senator from Alabama evinces a clear disregard, disrespect, and even disdain for the civil and human rights of racial and ethnic minorities, women, the disabled, and others who suffer from discrimination in this country--a damning indictment. Apparently, he doesn't stay in contact with the NAACP chapter in Alabama. In 2009, the NAACP gave Jeff Sessions--Civic and Human Rights Convention, April 23 to 26, 2009, NAACP Governmental Award of Excellence, Senator Jeff Sessions: For the outstanding work you do. That is one of the awards he forgot to tell us about, so I hope he will amend. Another attack on Senator Sessions, he received an award from a David Horowitz group that was labeled by the Senator from Connecticut as being some rightwing extremist organization. All I can say is that the Annie Taylor Award is named for a lady who went over Niagara Falls in a barrel. They give it to conservatives who stood up under difficult circumstances. I actually received the award as an impeachment manager. Chris Matthews was there to moderate the dinner. So I don't know what Mr. Horowitz said after I was there, before he was there; all I can say is that I received the award, too, and I sure as hell don't consider myself a bigot. Voting against the Violence Against Women Act authored by Senator Leahy--I won't give you a long rendition. I voted against it, too, for reasons I will be glad to explain to you at a later time. The bottom line here is that most of the things said about Jeff Sessions and the way he acted as a Senator could be said about almost all of us on this side who consider ourselves conservative. Back to our friends at the NAACP, I asked Mr. Brooks, ``Do you have a legislative scorecard how you rate people in the Body?'' He said, ``Yes. And Senator Sessions has been historically low rated.'' Here is what I want the body to know: that in the report card of the 113th Congress, the first half, here are the ratings. Senator Grassley--all Republicans here, 11 percent; Hatch, 25 percent; Graham, 25 percent; Cornyn, 11 percent; Lee, 11 percent; Cruz, 11 percent; Sasse, he wasn't in Congress; Blake, 29 percent; Crapo, 14 percent; Tillis and Kennedy were not rated yet. On the Democratic side of the Judiciary Committee, Feinstein, 100 percent; Leahy, 100 percent; Whitehouse, 100 percent; Klobuchar, 100 percent; Franken, 100 percent; Coons, 96 percent; Blumenthal, 100 percent; Hirono, 100 percent. Not only did Jeff Sessions have a poor rating, all of us did. So to my friends on the other side, you are making arguments that I don't think are good for the future of this body and the country as a whole. You are basically saying: You did not vote for the legislation I supported. You voted against ideas I embrace that I think make America a unique place; therefore, you cannot have this job. Here is what I would say: Senator Sessions voted as a very conservative Senator from the State of Alabama who has conducted himself honorably his entire life. And I really regret that we have gotten to this point. All of us in here know Jeff, and I have been on this floor fighting with him tooth and nail about immigration reform. I worked with Senator Durbin, who is going to speak next, and our chief antagonist most of the time was Senator Sessions. Never in my darkest day will I ever believe Jeff Sessions said one word on this floor that he did not truly believe. And he reflects the views of millions of Americans. As to the status of the LGBT community, I think Jeff Sessions was representing the values of his State. And all I can say is, that is what we are sent up here to do. If we disagree, we disagree, but it is a big leap from the policy disagreement to not qualified. I asked the NAACP chairman: Name one Republican you would recommend to be Attorney General. I have yet to get a name. So what we are talking about here, unfortunately, is an attack on conservatism more than it is Jeff Sessions because almost everything said about Jeff could be said about me and most of my colleagues over here. Why did I vote for Holder? Why did I vote for Lynch? Why did I vote for Sotomayor and Hagel? And the list goes on and on and on. I expect that when a liberal President wins, they will pick people who are qualified, who share their view to represent their administration. When it comes to the Attorney General, you can be liberal and you can be conservative, but you also still can be fair to the public as a whole. I don't believe for 1 second that Jeff Sessions, as Attorney General of the United States, will take any of his political positions and jam them down your throat if the law says no. I have never seen that about the man. The minority leader of the Alabama Senate, Senator Ross, an African- American Democratic minority leader, said: I have worked with Jeff Sessions. I know him personally, and all of my encounters with him have been for the greater good of Alabama. We have spoken about everything, from civil rights to race relations. We agree that as Christian men, our hearts and minds focus on doing right by all people. That is the Jeff Sessions I know. That is why I am lending my support to his nomination. I have some serious differences with President Trump, and those differences will materialize over time. And I hope I have the courage of my convictions to stand up for what I believe even when my party has the White House. That is a very hard thing to do for all of us. I intend to do it to the best of my ability, and I will get a lot of coverage for doing that because that makes for good political reporting. But what will not be covered is the fact that on the really big issues, mostly, I agree with President Trump and Jeff Sessions about what we need to do to change the dynamic regarding crime. I will work with Senator Durbin to bring about sentencing reform, but it is now time to go in on the offense against crime. One of the things that pleases me most about this nomination of Senator Sessions is that we have been very strong allies in fighting the War on Terror. Jeff Sessions understands the difference between fighting a crime and fighting a war. It will be welcome news for me to have an Attorney General who understands that Bin Laden's son-in-law who is captured on the battlefield should be treated differently than somebody who tried to steal your car. Under Jeff Sessions, the Justice Department will look at enemy combatants for who they are--warriors in a cause to destroy our lives--and they will be held consistent with the law of war, not domestic criminal law. And the days of terrorists being read the Miranda rights as if they were common criminals will soon be over. That will make us all safer. I look forward to voting for Senator Sessions and working with him. And if we have disagreements, the one thing I know for sure is that Jeff will at least listen to me. This body is adrift. The country is really divided. I hope that once this confirmation process is over, we can get back to doing the business of the American people. To the extent that Donald Trump becomes the problem, we will push back. Right now, people are pushing back against everything all the time, and you are going to hurt yourself, as well as this body, because there is no way you can ever convince me that Jeff Sessions is not qualified to be the Attorney General. I can understand why you wouldn't pick him, but there is no doubt in my mind that he is somebody a Republican conservative President would pick, and they did. I yield the floor

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I know we are going to vote here fairly soon, but I just want to address the body before the vote. Nikki Haley is soon to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, I believe with a very strong vote in the committee, 19 to 2. Senators Corker and Cardin did an excellent job of running the hearing. Governor Haley conducted herself very well. I know that, as Governor of South Carolina, she has brought us together at home. She has dealt with some things that are incredibly difficult for any State. We had a thousand-year flood, and we had the tragedy in Charleston, with Dylann Roof shooting nine parishioners praying at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston. She handled these historic crises with dignity and grace. She was able to rally the State and remove the Confederate battle flag from the capitol grounds. All I can say is that the skill set she has of bringing people together I have seen. As she goes into this new job, she can learn the nuances of foreign policy, but diplomacy is something you either have or you don't. She is tough and determined, and I think she is very capable of being the United States' voice in the United Nations. As a matter of fact, I think she will represent us extremely well. The bottom line is that her story is a uniquely American story-- immigrant parents coming to a small town in South Carolina. She said very pointedly: I was too light to be African American or Black, and I was too dark to be White. She is Indian American. She and her family have contributed greatly to our State. I think all of us can be proud that Nikki Haley will soon be our voice and America's face in the United Nations. I think President Trump chose wisely. I look forward to helping her in her new job. I urge this body to support her nomination because I have seen her in action. I think she will represent us all very well. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, there are a lot of pressing issues going on in the country and in the world. These are tough, turbulent times. But Senator Scott and I are going to take a moment or two to talk about a topic that I think millions of Americans appreciate: college football. In the South, where Tim and I come from, it is as close to being a religion as you can get, and we are here to celebrate Clemson University becoming the national champion in college football, beating Alabama in the best college football playoff game I have ever witnessed in my life. To the people of Alabama: You had one heck of a ride, a 26-game winning streak, something you should be proud of. To the Tigers: You beat the best team in the country, and, to me, the way you won is as important as the outcome. DeShaun Watson is probably going to go in the very top of the draft to the NFL. I would say he is the best college football player in America. What DeShaun has won for Clemson is unbelievable. The way he has done it is even more unbelievable. He graduated in 3 years. He is one of the nicest young men I have ever met in my life. His faith means a lot to him. He threw the ball to Hunter Renfrow, who was a walk-on--a young man from a small town in South Carolina who walked on to the Clemson University team. Because of Coach Dabo Swinney, he had a shot at making the team and wound up catching the winning pass to win the national title. How is this possible? It is possible because of leadership at the top. President Clements, our new president, has a vision of Clemson University as aggressive and bold off the field as Dabo has had on the field. I think Dabo Swinney represents the best in college sports. The Clemson team is truly a family. If I had a son, I would want him to play for Dabo. If you are looking for a place to go to school where you would be academically challenged, go to Clemson. If you are looking for a place to go to school or to be a part of a community, something bigger than yourself, go to Clemson. If you are looking for a place to watch sports at the highest level possible, go to Clemson. So I congratulate the Tigers. Who you beat was impressive, but more impressive is how you have conducted yourself over the last couple of years. The Clemson program is a model for college athletics. Dabo has an uncanny ability to take people from different backgrounds and mold them into a team. He loves his players and they love him. I live 5 miles from Clemson University and went to the University of South Carolina, and most of you don't know what that means: the biggest rivalry. I am proud of Clemson. I grew up in the shadow of the university, 5 miles from the stadium. I have been around the Clemson Tiger family all my life. They conferred an honorary degree upon me a couple of years ago. Given the academic standards at Clemson, that is the only way I would have ever graduated from Clemson. So I want to tell the Tiger Nation that all of us in South Carolina are so proud of your victory on the field, but equally proud of the way you conduct yourself off the field. Clemson University is in the top 20 public schools in the country, with no end in sight. Next year, if I were an Alabama fan, I would be very optimistic. This young freshman quarterback is coming back. He is an incredible talent. The people of Alabama should be proud of their football team and their coaching staff because you have been on top of the mountain for a very long time. I hope you believe that Clemson is a worthy successor. Dabo said it best, ``The [tiger] paw is flying on the top of the mountain'' of college football, and that is saying a lot. Go Tigers.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, that is a really good question because the purpose of this legislation is to hold nation-states responsible for aiding terrorist organizations. The YPG Kurds, in the eyes of Turkey, could be a terrorist group. Al Qaeda is certainly considered a terrorist group in the eyes of everybody. We are now chasing terrorists all over the world. We are receiving information from one organization, taking that information, militarizing it, using it in a lethal fashion, and hitting people we don't intend to hit. Here is what would solve this problem. For a liability to exist on any nation-state, including the United States, the only time you can be sued is if you intended and knowingly engaged in the activity, partnering with a terrorist group or separately, with the knowledge that you meant for this to happen. If we don't have that knowing requirement, we are going to open ourselves up to a lot of heartache throughout the world.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is a really good question. One of the concepts we want to introduce into the new modification is discretionary decisions by nation-states. The original bill said you couldn't sue based on a discretionary decision--a planning activity, a strategic decision. Apparently, there is some evidence that lower-level Saudi officials or people in Saudi Arabia provided some money, helped people get passports, helped people do this, helped people do that. We don't want to be held liable if we have a rogue employee in a consulate somewhere. It has to be that the nation-state at the highest level of government--to be liable for the torturous act--knew or should have known. If we don't want to be guilty by association, you don't want to be held liable as an entire nation-state because you have one part of the government doing a function that was not approved by the government as a whole. All I can say is we are making strategic decisions today. I don't know how much money we have given to the Kurds and other allies in Syria fighting ISIL, but I can tell you some of these groups in the eyes of other people in the region are terrorists, and they have an agenda outside of fighting ISIL. I don't want to be liable because we helped them in the cause of fighting ISIL if they go and do something else to harm somebody else, some other nation, unless we knew about it, because it will stop our ability to have partners. Unfortunately, in the war on terror, you are not going to win the war if you don't make alliances, and sometimes these alliances are with pretty unsavory people. Saudi Arabia is in the same position we are. If you open the floodgates and the United States is liable because of the activity that occurred, people from your country are involved, but you don't have the requirement of saying you knew about it and you wanted it to happen. Then we are opening ourselves up to a liability all over the globe because, unlike Saudi Arabia, we are all over the place. We are everywhere--in the Philippines. I can't think of a region in the world where there are not American operatives, intelligence officials, or military officials who are not somehow joined in the fight against different forms of terrorism, and all I am asking is that we modify this law. You can bring a claim against anybody you think caused 9/11, including a country like Saudi Arabia, but you have to prove that the government knew about it, should have known about it, and aided in the actual act. That is not in the law, and if we don't put that in the law, it will bite us all, and everybody fighting this war is trying to tell us we have gone too far. Next year Senator McCain, Senator Graham, and hopefully others, will make it a top priority to modify this law so we can conduct foreign policy as a nation and not put our warfighters at risk and those we rely upon to win this war, because we are not helping the 9/11 families by putting people at risk for no good reason who are out there all over the world trying to protect us. That is exactly what we have done if we don't modify this law.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with Senator McCain when he arrives.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. I think the foreign policy of nations and the willingness to assist us as a nation is very much up in the air if we don't somehow modify this law because if you are doing business in the United States--let's pick Saudi Arabia. The claims can be brought against the Saudi Government. If there is a judgment, those assets can be attached and they can be taken. If you are not doing business here, you don't have to worry about your assets being taken by a court. I want to stress this. There can be a claim, but that claim has to be able to prove that the nation-state--example, Saudi Arabia--knew or should have known of the attack itself and aided the attack. If you can prove that, we not only should allow all lawsuits, we should rethink our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Here is what the Saudis tell me. If we actually did that, I don't blame you for rethinking the relationship with us. What you say is very true, Senator McCain. If this law stands in the United States--and this is an emotional time in the world. Juries render justice, but Mideastern nations are not very popular right now, for sometimes good reason. The Saudis are helping people in Yemen. They are helping people in Syria. Sometimes they are helping people differently than we are helping because they are more worried about Iran than Assad. It is a complex world, and I think nation-states are going to be reluctant to do business in America if they come from a complex part of the world if we don't modify this law because all of their assets are subject not only to being confiscated through a court process, it would no longer be a safe place to do business. I would stress this. The same thing could happen to us in other countries. If some groups we are helping in Syria somehow want to take on Saudi Arabia because they don't like their government, I don't want us to be sued in Saudi court and the American business assets that lie in Saudi Arabia be seized or attached if we didn't know the people in question were actually going to attack Saudi Arabia and collaborate in that attack.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, in a political world getting more contentious by the day, with even greater divisions and an increasing lack of civility, Joe Biden has always stood out. The reason so many Republicans and Democrats appreciate him is because he has touched us all in a special way. When it comes to Joe Biden, his word is his bond. He is a fierce competitor, but never takes the fight too far. If he can help you, he always will. He tries, as much as possible, to ensure every decision is a win-win. As Vice President, he served President Obama extremely well with unquestionable loyalty. He has proven to be one of the most successful negotiators for the President. I have traveled the world with Joe and the private man is exactly what you see in public. Joe Biden is articulate, determined, kind, gracious, funny, and an eternal optimist. I am confident he will continue to serve the nation he loves so much. Vice President Joe Biden stands out in all the right ways.