David Perdue

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business, for debate only, be extended until 12 noon.

Mr. PERDUE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if the Senate receives H.J. Res. 76 from the House, and if the text of H.J. Res. 76 is identical to the text at the desk, that the joint resolution be considered passed, the preamble be considered agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 765 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Perdue substitute amendment be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, this legislation is important because it will offer the Purple Heart the same types of legal protections currently in place for the Medal of Honor and help put an end to profiteering off of the sacrifice of our great American heroes. I would like to thank those Senators who have cosponsored this bill, as well, and the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for persisting to get this bill on the floor. There is no higher honor that we have in the Senate than to honor our veterans and the people who put their lives on the line every day for their country.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, it is nice to see you here at 11 p.m. on Monday night. One of the privileges we have of being in the majority is that we get to preside over the U.S. Senate, so we can listen to all of our colleagues talk to this august body. I have been in that chair for the last couple of hours. I can't go to bed tonight without putting the record straight in this body. I don't think there is a Member of the U.S. Senate who doesn't want America to have the best healthcare in the world. The problem is, we have a campaign of disinformation that is underway right now, and it is outrageous. I cannot let it stand. My mission tonight, very briefly, will be to put some facts on the table, on the record, because we have a lot of innuendo right now, a lot disinformation: Oh, my God, people are going to die. Let me remind everybody, we are sitting here with a healthcare system that is collapsing. There is no other way to describe it. Why are we here tonight at 11 p.m.? Before I get to healthcare, I want to remind the American public of why the U.S. Senate is open tonight. We also did this earlier in the spring because something historic is underway right now in the United States of America and that is this: For the first time in our history, the minority party has not waived a Senate rule that would bypass the time requirements when confirming a nominee by the President of the United States. Because of that, we today have confirmed only around 29 percent of this President's nominees. The prior President, at this very point in time, had over 70 percent--over 70 percent--almost 300 people. I think the number today is under 50 for this President. It wasn't until a month or so ago that he could even have a full staff meeting. By the way, who is running America today? Holdovers from the last administration because we haven't been able to confirm the new nominees. Over 200 people right now stand in line, waiting to be confirmed by this body. It is outrageous. The American people ought to be upset. They ought to be more than upset. Let's define who is doing that. It is not the majority. The minority party is dragging their feet because it slows down everything else. Guess what doesn't get done this year if we continue with this schedule. Unless we are here every night, as we are tonight, we will not have time to get to taxes this year. We will not have time to get to what the American people are assuming we are going to get to. Consumer confidence is at a 13-year high because they are anticipating that we are going to clean up some of this mess. Let me quickly move on to healthcare and put a few facts on the record tonight before we close. There are five healthcare systems in America. We forget this. We talk only about ObamaCare right now, but there are five healthcare systems in America. First, we have group policies. This is where almost the majority--the vast majority are in this. Anyone who works in a company or in a large organization has a group policy. Then there is the individual market. The individual market is what ObamaCare addresses. It is only 13 percent of the entire healthcare system. Then there is the VA. Then there are Medicare and Medicaid. There are five different systems of healthcare in the United States. What we are dealing with is the individual market and Medicaid--mostly the individual market. Let me try to describe the situation as we see it today. In 2008, before the ACA, there were 48 million people in America who did not have insurance. That is a catastrophe by anyone's measure. In the richest country in the history of the world, we had 48 million people who did not have insurance. You could be precluded from having insurance because of a preexisting condition. You could lose your insurance. You couldn't transfer across State lines. If you changed companies, even in group policies, you could be denied coverage under the next employer's policy. There were real problems. Both sides had responsibility for that, but today after the ACA, 28 million people, as we stand here tonight, still do not have insurance in America--28 million. Of the 20 million who got it, 16 got it only because of the expansion of Medicaid, not because of ObamaCare's work in the individual market; 16 million got it because of the expansion of Medicaid. All that was, was bribery from the Federal Government to certain States that decided to take the money and run. They didn't do their citizens a full justice. What we see of the remaining 4 million of the 20 million who got insurance during ObamaCare--remember, 16 million got it because of the expansion of Medicaid; of the remaining 4 million, 2 million are like my wife and me. Do you remember the day when President Obama said that if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance and if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor? Like most Democrats in the Senate and the House who voted on ObamaCare without reading it, he obviously didn't know what was in the bill because neither of those things were true. I was canceled. In an individual policy before I ran for the U.S. Senate, my individual policy as a retiree was canceled, and the only policy we could get under the exchange in ObamaCare included things like vision, hearing, drug rehabilitation. I have never had a problem with that. My wife hasn't either. By the way, maternity--I met my wife in first grade. We are not having babies at this age. What is that? My rate is almost double because we had to take things in policies that we did not need. Of the remaining 2 million, 1 million are the most destitute, low- income people who really do need our help, but we have disrupted the entire healthcare system because the Democrats thought that the bigger government approach would work. How has that worked out in places like the VA? I hear talk now about single payer; I will get to that in a second. If you like the VA, you are going to love a single-payer system because that is exactly what it is. Let me go on. I have heard a lot of talk in this Chamber tonight about, oh my God, the Republicans are going to hurt people in America-- hurt people in America. Let me talk about who is hurting people in America today. This is a travesty in itself. We cannot get the information from the IRS. We have just now gotten the information from the IRS. In 2014, the IRS, under the rules of ObamaCare, fined 8 million people $1.8 billion. Mr. President, I don't know about you, but I am outraged. I know you are too. The irony of that is that 85 percent of the people who were fined in 2014--$1.8 billion--85 percent made less than $50,000, and less than half of them made $25,000. What our Democratic friends did was cram down the throats of Americans this thing called ObamaCare, and then they put fines on people who couldn't afford insurance, and they are the poorest people in our country. Who is standing for those guys today--the Democrats? Don't you bet. They want a Big Government solution that gives them more power, and they could not care less about the very poor people they claim to champion. I have had enough of it. This is outrageous. Twenty-two million people are going to lose insurance. That is what they tell us. Let's clean this up right now. The CBO's own estimate says that once you remove the mandate--forget about what else is available. If you just remove the mandate, because the policies are so expensive, 15 million are going to give it up. That is happening today. By the way, do you know that CBO is using a March 2016 baseline to compare these numbers to? It is outrageous. In business, you would never accept this. Yet today they are determined to be the ``holy grail'' up here. I haven't seen a number come out of the CBO that I would depend on yet. In fact, in 2010, they overestimated the number of people who would sign up for ObamaCare by 12 million people. They missed the estimate by more than 50 percent. This isn't a rounding error. They don't know what they are doing. Right now, today, we have the same problem. Fifteen million people say they will give up their insurance voluntarily because it is too expensive. That has nothing to do with the new plan. That is because ObamaCare is too expensive. They also say that 4 million people will give up Medicaid. Medicaid is free. Why would somebody give up Medicaid? They say ObamaCare is so good and so affordable that they are going to add 5 million people to it. There is no evidence today that would back that claim up. That is not a quantified model outcome. It is the estimate of a person who sits over there and makes this up. The other side is acting like, oh my goodness, this is the ``holy grail.'' Let's talk about this. The premiums under ObamaCare prior to this year, over the last 2 years, are up over 105 percent in America. They say that the reason premiums are going up is because of uncertainty coming out of the White House. This year's rates were determined last year, before we even knew this President was going to be a nominee. That is more disinformation. What I am fed up with is that it sounds like a good story until you see the facts. The premiums in my State alone going into next year are going up 42 percent. Here is the untold truth: In my State, 96 of 159 counties have only one carrier. That is a monopoly. They can do pretty much whatever they want. That is under ObamaCare, not anything else we are talking about. That is the reality today. By the way, here is the real comeuppance. Today in my State--and you have the same problem in your State--300,000 people who make less than the poverty rate in my State cannot get insurance today under ObamaCare. Forget about what we are talking about to fix this mess. Today under ObamaCare, they can't get insurance--300,000 people in my State. That is true in every State in our country. That is the untold ugliness of ObamaCare. ObamaCare is hurting people right now. I am tired of hearing the other side talk about how they care for people--they care for people-- and then they fine the poorest people in America $1.8 billion. Then they deny 300,000 people in my State access to healthcare. Enough already. What are we doing about it? Six months ago, this President said that there were four objectives that any healthcare system in America and the individual market had to meet. The first was access. We have already talked about how ObamaCare is failing people who need access to it. The lowest income people in America are being denied insurance under ObamaCare. We fixed that. People who want insurance are going to get insurance. By the way, premiums were the second thing we had to do to try to get costs down because it is becoming too prohibitive. I have sons in the middle of their careers. They can't really afford the insurance they are being offered today. I feel it firsthand in my own life. Premiums right now, though--if we put into place the suggestions we have on the table right now, the HHS Department has estimated just last week with a very credible model that rates could come down as much as 78 percent in the next 4 years. Has anybody heard the other side remind us of that data point? No. Why do those rates come down? Because the free-market system gets to act again, instead of being shackled in choices being removed. All of a sudden, now we move into it. By the way, they talk about these made-up fantasy policies. Wait a minute. I had one of those made-up fantasy policies that you can't get today under ObamaCare. It is called catastrophic coverage. For some people with a high deductible, catastrophic coverage--that works. They are denied that today because Big Government knows more about what you need in your personal life. The third thing we had to do--and this was very important. The second part of this problem is that Medicaid was not on a sustainable path. I am sorry. They have overpromised, and they cannot deliver. There is no way over the next 30 years that we can sustain Medicaid. Just as Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt, we cannot afford to do what they are promising people we are going to do. They know that. They already know that. Just like the Great Society, these Big Government programs that they promise all the time are going to work have never worked. The Great Society, the War on Poverty was going to remove poverty from America. I remember that. I sit at a desk where that bill was signed by the then-Democratic leader of the Senate, Richard Russell, before it went to the White House. I am reminded every day of how Big Government has failed the American people. That war on poverty has spent trillions of dollars trying to reduce poverty in America. Yet, today, the poverty rate is fundamentally the same as it was in 1965 when that was signed into law. Big Government does not work in situations like this. I lived under a single payer. My son lived under a single payer. This is the alternative they are after. I have heard it mentioned three times on the floor of the Senate tonight. We cannot go there. It bifurcates delivery. It would add $3.2 trillion. That is more than we spend on all of our mandatory expenses today--$3.2 trillion every single year. That is impossible. If you think that would work, imagine this. Go home and look at your tax bill. Whatever you paid the Federal Government last year, double it. That is what that would mean. It is not workable. The fourth thing we had to do was make sure preexisting conditions were protected. I worried about that through my entire career. If I changed jobs, if I had been sick or my family had been sick, I might have been denied insurance. We can't allow that. This bill doesn't allow that. We protected preexisting conditions. We put Medicaid on a sustainable path for the long term. We also bring premiums down. That was a major priority here. And we give everybody in America access to healthcare--period, end of the conversation. That is not good enough. The other side is not going to be happy until this Federal Government steps in and takes over 18 percent of our economy called healthcare. They tried to do it in 1992 to 1994, under HillaryCare. They tried to do it here. I remember the Speaker of the House saying: If you want to know what is in this bill, you have to vote for the bill. We are not doing that today. This cloud of innuendo that the other side has perpetrated on the American people is just not true. In 2010, not one Republican voted for ObamaCare. Not one amendment got to the floor of this Senate. Yet they want to talk about this great open policy. They had 7 years to fix this mess. People in my State have been hurt by it. It is unforgivable, and we can do something about it this week. Senator John McCain is very sick. He is a fighter. He will take care of this. I hope he will be back this week to help us. If he can, I think he will. We are going to vote on it this week. We have to do this for the American people. I want to remind everybody what is at stake here. If we don't pass this tomorrow, then we end up moving toward a single-payer system. Let me remind everybody of the other Big Government failures we talk about: the VA and the Postal Service. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are bankrupt. We talk about the ObamaCare failures. Then there is the Great Society of rural poverty. I want to remind everybody. Let me close with this. I heard tonight that this is a reckless action, the new policy. I heard New Testament examples about how to take care of your brethren. It is shocking to me that somebody on the other side would say that when they know these statistics of what they have done--8 million of the poorest people in America have been fined $1.8 billion. Half of them make under $25,000 a year. That is taking care of your brethren all right. I am embarrassed. We can fix that. I believe we heard the rain of devastation: No one is helped by this bill; it is a reckless act. Here is the one I love: We want to work with you. We want to work with you to help fix this thing. Just a year ago, I didn't hear any speeches in here--I don't think you did from that Chair--where anybody on that side acknowledged that there was anything wrong with ObamaCare. You hear today: We want to work with you to help fix ObamaCare. It is 7 years too late, in my opinion. It would have been nice to have been included in the conversation in 2009 and 2010 when it was crammed down the throats of Republicans. I believe this is a historic moment in America, not just for healthcare. Healthcare is very important, but it is bigger than that. This is about the direction of our country. Are we going to try to trust Big Government again and again until we can't afford it? We are already well down that rabbit hole. We cannot afford this chance again. We have already proven it doesn't work. I hope that this week colleagues on our side will get together and we will vote this thing in. I welcome any Democratic support as well. I know we are not going to get it. This is a time to stand. I hope we will have that vote. I fully encourage my colleagues here to support that. Let's get on with business.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. PERDUE

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

Mr. PERDUE

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

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12:30 p.m., Thursday, July 13; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Hagerty nomination, with all postcloture time expiring at 1:45 p.m.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a train wreck that is coming to our country right before our very eyes. Yesterday, the Federal Reserve, for the fourth time in the last year and a half, increased the Federal discount rate by one-quarter point-- one-quarter point. That is a rounding error in most people's imaginations; yet, I think it is a very impactful number. That is the fourth increase in the last year and a half that amounts to 100 basis points or a 1 full percentage point increase in the discount rate. With a $20 trillion debt, that equates to about $200 billion of new interest that we will be required to pay out of the revenue we get off the backs of working men and women in America. I have frequently come to this floor to speak about the $20 trillion debt, but, as we see what is happening now, we see the reality of what has been predicted over the last few years; that is, as we start talking about growth in the economy, we see a demand for capital and interest rates rising. We also see the Federal Reserve talking about adjusting their balance sheet--some $4.5 trillion on their balance sheet, the largest balance sheet they have had in history--they are now talking about unwinding that. So these are dramatic impacts on what we are talking about right now; that is, how we fund what we are going to be doing not only in healthcare but also our military, as well as the domestic programs we are here to talk about. What is even more disturbing about the debt we are talking about and the increases in interest is the structure of that debt. Over the last 8 years, the prior administration decided strategically to keep our bond portfolio that supports this debt, the bonds we issue that pay for this debt--the average duration, the length of those bonds, is under 3 years. Some 60 percent, almost, of all the government debt we have in the United States today matures in 3 years or less. That means these increases we are talking about are going to roll on us and the backs of the American taxpayer almost immediately. This is not something that is going to happen in 10 or 15 years; it is right here on us. Let me put that in perspective. Most every other country in the world that has significant debt--and there are a lot of them; not to the percentage that we do--have already dealt with this duration problem. The UK, for example, over the last 8 years, instead of going short when interest rates were virtually zero, they went long. Forty-eight percent of the United Kingdom's debt is 20 years or longer in maturity. Again, 60 percent of our debt, because of the last administration's strategic decision to stay short--borrow short and spend long--that is a prescription for failure, in business and in government. Sixty percent of our debt matures in less than 3 years. That is a formula for absolute disaster, and that is what I am talking about. But even more important than the debt and the duration and the way these interest rate increases are going to impact us almost readily is the fact that we have about 43 days--I came to the floor last week and reported that we had 50 days left, and today we have 43 working days left in this fiscal year before September 30. That means we have to fund the Federal Government for fiscal year 2018 by the end of September. In the last 43 years, this body--Congress--has only done that four times in regular order; according to the 1974 Budget Act, only four times. What is worse than that is that in the 43 days that we have, from an effective standpoint, we really only have 25 working days left in this Senate. I would argue that with the debt ceiling, with healthcare, with the tax package, with the appropriations process, and the funding of the government, I just don't see any way that is possible. I think that when we are talking to the American public, we need to come clean. I believe that, like in most years in the past, we are going to be pressured in this body again, just like we have 178 times. We have been forced into a continuing resolution in this body in order to get past some arcade financing limitation we have had. So that means we have by the end of September to fund the Federal Government. Historically, we have only done that four times, according to regular order. The other times of the 43 years, either a CR or an omnibus was done. But 178 continuing resolutions got us past the end of the fiscal year, moved on to an omnibus of some sort, and then the release valve in all of those occasions was more debt, more spending. It is very difficult because the budget process itself is broken. And because of that, between now and the end of September, I personally--I am just a business guy, but I have no imagination of how we are going to fund this government by passing 12 appropriations bills. As a matter of fact, since 1974, this body has only averaged passing 2.5 appropriations bills a year out of the 12. Now, you tell me, in the next 43 days, are we going to pass 12 bills to fund this Federal Government? There is no way. So my call on our colleagues here on both sides of the aisle is, let's get busy right now. I don't care what the structure is, as long as it is not a continuing resolution because that ties the hands of our military. They cannot deal with that. It limits their ability to move money from one department to another. If they wanted to move money from armor to infantry just in the Army alone, they cannot do that. And with the risks we face around the world today, that is an impossibility. We are working feverishly right now to change the budget process. It will not affect us this year. This is something we have to get serious on right now. I believe we are poised to have a turnaround in this economy. Consumer confidence is up. It hasn't been higher than this level in 13 years. CEO confidence is higher than it has been in 15 years. Manufacturing confidence hasn't been this high in over 20 years. Why? Because they see some regulations being rolled back right now by this administration and this Senate. We passed 13 bills out of 14 that we brought forward that pulled back onerous regulations. Just this week, we had the Secretary of Treasury tell us that some 70 percent of the limitations on our banks--not the controls that protect us against another 2008 and 2009 disaster but the controls that are unnecessary and keeping capital tied up in small and regional banks unnecessarily. We have some $6 trillion not at work in this economy because of bad fiscal policy right here in Washington. What we are trying to do is unwind that, get it back into the economy. By the way, if the Federal Reserve releases their $4.5 trillion and we don't find a way to unleash this $6 trillion, tell me where the capital is going to come from. I am here to tell you that I believe we are on the brink of an economic turnaround if we can, in fact, effect a reasonable improvement in healthcare, get on and fund the government in a responsible way before September 30, and move on and get a tax package done this year. People right now are working on their budgets for business for fiscal year 2018--right now. By the end of their Q3, they will have that done. Their capital budgets, which go out many years, are being done too. So they are handicapping right now whether we will in fact get that tax package done. My argument is this: Let's get these things dealt with right now on a timely basis--the debt ceiling, funding the government--and move on to this tax package so we can, in fact, get that done so that business entities and our free enterprise system can, in fact, budget accordingly so that we can get some of these benefits into the economy as early as late next year. If we don't get that tax package done before Christmas, I don't believe we will have any impact in fiscal year 2018 from that.

Mr. PERDUE

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

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, we have 50 workdays in the Senate before the end of this fiscal year--50 days. That does not include the 5 weeks we will be gone during the August State work weeks. I rise tonight to talk about what happens September 30. September is the end of the fiscal year. That means we have to have the Federal Government funded for fiscal year 2018, which starts October 1 of this year. Like most years--as a matter of fact, like every year since 1980--the Federal Government will probably not be funded by the end of this fiscal year in the manner it was supposed to be, according to the law that was done in 1974, the Budget Act of 1974. In the last 43 years, the Federal Government has only been funded four times, according to that bill. We have used 178 continuing resolutions, and therefore ongoing omnibuses and so forth, where six people get in a room, basically decide how we are going to spend $1 trillion. This is the only enterprise I can find anywhere in the world that funds its operations this way. The problem is, we have a system that is absolutely totally broken. It is a fraud that is being perpetrated on the American people. We have been asked, between now and September 30-- this is the way the budget process works. By the way, we should have started this back in January, but we couldn't do it because we were working on the fiscal year 2017 budget to do reconciliation so we could work on healthcare. Now we are going to, when that gets done, do a budget for 2018. We will do a reconciliation and hopefully do a tax package behind that, but wrapped up in all of that, here comes September 30 and 50 workdays from today to fund the Federal Government. Between now and then, in 50 days, we are asked to do a budget for fiscal year 2018, to do full authorizations for 16 different entities, committees, and then do appropriations for 12 committees. By the way, over the last 43 years, you have to fund 12 appropriations bills to fund the Federal Government. It was 13 appropriations bills up until around 2000. Since then, it has been 12, but of those 12, the average number of appropriations bills this body has appropriated each year is 2\1/2\. Now, by any measure, that is unacceptable, but we are now asked, between now and September 30, in a very truncated manner, to do the budget, do all 16 authorizations and all 12 appropriations. Now, I am not a betting man, but I will go to Vegas and short that idea right now. There is no way we are going to fund this government according to that policy--no way. It will not happen. It can't happen. It has not happened in 43 years that way except four times. Every single year this process breaks down. Like I said, we have used 178 continuing resolutions. What does a CR do? It ties the hands of our military leaders, where they can't move money from one bucket to the other to help accommodate it. So what we have right now is a process that just has not worked. Yet, because of that, the Federal Government has exploded in size. In 2000, the Federal Government spent $2.4 trillion running the Federal Government. Last year, we spent $3.9 trillion. Those are constant 2016 dollars. Over the next 10 years, we are going to spend $53 trillion running the Federal Government. We are going to borrow a significant part of that--another $10 trillion. The irony is, the debate we are having between now and September 30 is to fund the government, not on the full $4 trillion we are going to spend next year running the Federal Government, we are going to have this debate on only about $1.1 trillion, the discretionary side of the budget. If you do the math, in the last 8 years and, oh, by the way, in the next 10 years, according to the current CBO baseline budget, we borrow over 30 percent of what we spend as a Federal Government. Well, discretionary spending over the next 10 years is going to be less than that. So what that means is, over the last 8 years and over the next 10 years, every dime we have spent on discretionary spending has, by definition, been borrowed. There is no other way to look at it. That means that every dime we have spent for our military, which is about $600 billion today, every dime we spend on our VA, which is a little less than $200 billion, and every dime we spend on all other domestic expenditures, including healthcare, by the way, comes to $1.1 trillion. Every dime of that today is borrowed money. That means we have to go to China and the rest of the world to fund all of our discretionary spending. Now, by anybody's estimate--conservative, liberal, whatever--that is not acceptable. Here is why it is not acceptable: It cannot be sustained over a long period of time. Yet we are sitting here with a budget today that goes for the next 10 years that says we are going to continue operating business as usual and add another $10 trillion to this already burdensome debt of $20 trillion. The debt crisis and the budget problem are interlinked. There is no way that we can solve the debt crisis unless and until we solve the budget process. The difficulty comes in trying to align the prospects within the process itself of getting to a determination. Right now, the budget process doesn't work for this very reason: The budget itself is not a law. It is a resolution, which means the majority party can cram down the throat of the minority its version of a political budget. That is all it is. Then you go to an authorization process, and, in the authorization process today, we have over $310 billion of Federal expenditures that are not authorized, including the State Department. Last year, we didn't even do an authorization for our military. Even then, after passing the appropriations bill in the Armed Services Committee 30 to 0, we could not get that bill on the floor of the Senate. We tried six times. So it was not authorized or appropriated last year, but it got wrapped up in an omnibus, and that same thing will more than likely happen this year. This can be fixed. It is not that difficult. Several of us have been working behind the scenes, looking at other best practices around the world--other countries, companies, and even States. We have looked at best practices. What we found was that nobody else tries to fund their government or their enterprise the way we try to fund the Federal Government. This goes back to article I and article II of our Constitution. Article I says that funding the Federal Government is the responsibility of Congress. Yet we have absconded with that. The 1921 act that created the Office of Management and Budget went well beyond what I think is called for in the original Constitution. So what we are looking at today is a legislative underreach and an executive overreach relative to funding government, out of necessity because of the dysfunction right here in the Senate relative to how we fund our government. There is no question that we will not fund this government without a continuing resolution and/or an omnibus come September 30. The fix is not that unreasonable. All we need is a politically neutral platform that brings all expenses into the budget process--all $4 trillion today. That would include discretionary and mandatory and that the budget become a law, which means that we have to get bipartisan support for the budget. Then, lastly, if we don't get the budget done by a certain date and we don't fund the government by the end of the fiscal year, then, severe consequences are borne by the people who have the responsibility to fund the government, and that is the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the people in the administration who are responsible for their part of it. It is not that complicated. Many other countries do it. Most other countries do it. In fact, in some countries, if they don't fund the government by the end of their fiscal year, their constitutions actually say that the government gets disbanded and they have an election. Well, that is not what I am calling for here. I don't think we have to do anything that severe. There are colleagues of mine right here in this body, on both sides, who have contributed--Senators Whitehouse, Enzi, Corker, Lankford, Tillis, Ernst, Rounds, Sullivan, Daines, and others--and who are weighing in on this. Governors, who have executive experience running large financial enterprises at the State level, have come into this body and bring enormous wealth of experience about how to get this done. My argument is that right now, during this period of dysfunctionality when we see firsthand the reality of not being able to take care of domestic needs, military needs, or any other discretionary enterprises that we want to fund because of our own budgeting intransigence, I can find no other time better than what we have right now to raise the question on both sides of the aisle. This is not a partisan conversation. Both sides are guilty, but let's come up with a politically neutral platform that would allow both sides, during the budget process, to talk about tax increases, tax expenditures, spending cuts, all the spending that we have, and all the responsibility we have in the Federal Government or in the Congress of funding the Federal Government. Why not? We have one suggestion that says: Pick a time in the future. Decide what percentage of your GDP should be covered by debt--no more than that--and have a limit on that, and then pick a roadmap back from that point in time to today with guardrails around that. That suggestion comes from the other side of the aisle, and I applaud that suggestion and I think it is very workable. I think we can find ways to make all of this work. This should not be a partisan conversation. I sit on the Armed Services Committee, and I sat on Foreign Relations the last 2 years. Both of those committees are really very strong bipartisan efforts by every Member. That is what is needed here, and yet the Budget Committee, ironically, is one of the most partisan committees. The reason it is so is because of the law itself, because the budget is not a law. It is a resolution. My contention is that this is the root of this problem. It is one of the causative factors that cause this debt to be uncontrollable and to cause a dysfunction in this body from even being able to attempt to bring that under control. The solution is not just taxing more. It is not just spending more. It is not just growing more. The problem is much bigger than that. The debt problem will never be solved unless and until we solve this budgeting process. As we close in on the next 50 days, as we check off every single day, I want my colleagues in here to be reminded of what we are going to have to do to fund the government come October 1. Please, let's not get right up to September 30 with a gun to our head that says: Either do it this way, spend this money this way, or do not fund the government tomorrow. That is total irresponsibility, just like I believe this budget process is a fraud perpetrated by Washington on the people of America and it is not honest relative to what we have to face up to in terms of our responsibilities. We cannot afford to do all that we are doing. That is just pure fact. The world is no longer going to be able to loan us the money that we need over the next 10 years--another $10 trillion. There is some $200 trillion of total debt in the world. Only $60 trillion of the $200 trillion is sovereign debt, and we have one-third of that sovereign debt today. Now, most other countries have curtailed their borrowing. We are one of the few that continue to just race along this path of borrowing money at this breakneck pace and adding another $10 trillion. We could, potentially, have over half of the world's sovereign debt in the next 10 years. That cannot happen. The world bond risk and the bond markets will not, potentially, allow that to happen. So today is the day. As we go through the next 50 days, I believe we need to look for opportunities on both sides of the aisle to find a bipartisan way to stop this nonsense and to get to where we can fund the government in a responsible way each year, not just 1 year, and to get away from the past 43 years of total failure in terms of funding the Federal Government, such that when we get to September 30 of each year, we have already approved the budget and we have the appropriations lined up and funded for the needs that we have all agreed here in Congress need to be met. I can think of no other call on this body higher than this right now because it puts us at risk of doing the very things that we need to do; that is, to take care of our domestic needs, to take care of the people who need the safety net, to take care of these legacy programs of Social Security and Medicare, and yet defend our country. Because of this debt, we are limiting the opportunities that we have, and we will not solve that until we address this budget process. I yield the floor.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise tonight to speak briefly about our new Secretary of Agriculture, my first cousin Sonny Perdue. I grew up with this man. I probably know too much about him, but we won't go there tonight. He grew up on a farm. He became a doctor of veterinary medicine and served in the Air Force. He had an ag business for the past 40 years. He and I have been in business together. I have seen his integrity, and I have seen his responsibility all my life. He is the first Republican Governor in over 135 years in our State in Georgia--just 15 years ago now, I guess. He served two terms. He created the Commission for a New Georgia, and he started an economic development focus in our State that has carried on for the last 15 years and has yielded the fact that our State today, by independent reports, is the best State in the country in which to do business. Tonight, he has been confirmed as our next Secretary of Agriculture. I could not be more proud for him, for our family, and, most importantly, for our country. I want to be the first in this august body to call my cousin Sonny Perdue by his new title: Mr. Secretary. I believe he is an outstanding candidate. I want to commend the President of the United States for his nomination. I think this is further evidence that this President, Donald J. Trump, is building an outstanding Cabinet with which to change the direction of our country, to get this economy going, to put America back to work again, to reengage internationally, and develop a fair and level playing field for the rest of the world economically. As Secretary of Agriculture, my cousin has a big job, and he has a big responsibility. I look forward to working with him as a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee to make our agricultural and farming and ranching industries vigorous and strong now and for future generations. I yield the floor.

Mr. PERDUE

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

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, it is humbling to be on the floor of the U.S. Senate with colleagues like Senator Lankford from Oklahoma. It is an honor to listen to his words, to his heart, on an issue like today because this is, I believe, a historic day. On January 31 of this year, I had the great honor of being invited to the White House when President Donald Trump announced his nominee for Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch. It was a professional rollout of this nomination, but it spoke more to the man, the individual, Judge Gorsuch, than it did to the circumstance surrounding it. Today, I want to again discuss Judge Gorsuch's nomination and the 200-plus years of historical precedent put on the line today. As an outsider of this political process, it is clear to me what is going on here. It really has nothing to do with Judge Gorsuch. The minority party today abandoned 230 years of tradition because of politics, in my opinion. Never before in the U.S. history has a purely partisan filibuster killed a Supreme Court nomination. Never before, in the history of our country, has a partisan filibuster killed a district judge nomination. Never before, and until 2003, has a partisan filibuster killed a circuit judge nomination. Mr. President, 2003 was the first time in our history that the rules of the Senate were used in a purely partisan way to stop a judicial nomination. In 2003, the Democratic Party threw out over 200 years of precedent when it comes to circuit judge nominees and killed a circuit judge nomination. Today they attempted to do the same thing when it comes to a nominee to the highest Court in the United States. It should be noted Republicans did not attempt to do this to either Justice Sotomayor or Justice Kagan when they were nominated by President Obama a few years ago. Throughout our history, even the most controversial Supreme Court nominees have gotten an up-or-down vote, a simple majority vote. On that note, I also wish to point out there is no longstanding rule or tradition that a Supreme Court nominee must obtain 60 votes to be confirmed. Judge Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a narrow 52-to-48 margin. Even though a single Senator could have required 60 votes to invoke cloture, and none did. Likewise, Justice Samuel Alito was confirmed by a 58-to- 42 margin. Again, no Senator required 60 votes to invoke cloture. Neither of those nominees were filibustered to death. They got an up- or-down vote. Mainstream media outlets have repeatedly fact-checked the minority party on this. For example, last week the Washington Post said: ``Once again: There is no `traditional' 60-vote `standard' or `rule' for Supreme Court nominations, no matter how much or how often Democrats claim otherwise.'' Even PolitiFact has repeatedly pointed out that ``Gorsuch, like all other Supreme Court Justice nominees, needs only a simple majority to be confirmed by the Senate.'' Clearly, outside of this body, it is recognized in the media, and on both sides of the aisle for that matter, that there is no such thing as a 60-vote standard when it comes to the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. Additionally, the notion that the minority party filibustering Judge Gorsuch's confirmation is the same as our not allowing a vote last year, that logic doesn't hold up. Last year, I joined many of my colleagues on the Senate floor in explaining why we felt it best not to give advice or consent on the nomination of a Justice to the Supreme Court during a Presidential election year. The integrity of the process, clearly outlined in article II, section 2, of the Constitution was at stake. It was about the principle, not the individual. Unlike the argument that it is tradition for a Supreme Court nominee to receive 60 votes, there is actual precedent for the position we took last year on President Obama's Supreme Court nominee. Former Vice President Biden, former Minority Leader Reid, and many other Members of both parties have agreed that the political theater of a Presidential election year should not influence the process. The last time a Justice was nominated and confirmed by a divided government in a Presidential election year was 1888. Clearly, there is more than 100 years of precedent for the position we took last year in not giving advice and consent. We took a position that was consistent with more than 100 years of actions and comments from Members of both parties. Let's just get over that. This year stands on its own, independently. The time for debate on this issue has come and gone. Furthermore, it is obvious that what is at issue here is not Judge Gorsuch's qualifications. In 2006, Judge Gorsuch was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals by a voice vote in this body with no opposition. Again, no opposition on the floor of the U.S. Senate, just 10 years ago. Then-Senator Biden did not object, then-Senator Reid did not object, then-Senator Clinton did not object, and, yes, then-Senator Obama did not object. Twelve current Members of this body, including the current senior Senator from New York, the senior Senator from Illinois, the senior Senator from California, did not object to Judge Gorsuch's confirmation in 2006. It is a simple fact, they had the opportunity to raise an objection, and they did not do it. It is obvious that what is going on here has nothing to do with Judge Gorsuch's qualifications. What is at issue is nothing but pure, unadulterated politics. This is exactly why I ran for the U.S. Senate, having never been involved in politics. This is what makes people home very nervous about the gridlock in this body. This is why President Trump still cannot meet with his full Cabinet today, months after he was sworn in as our President. This is the very cause of gridlock that I believe is causing the dysfunction in Washington. As I said, Judge Gorsuch was confirmed unanimously by voice vote with no opposition in 2006. Judge Gorsuch is a principled jurist who is steadfast in his commitment to defending and upholding the Constitution. In my private meetings with him, I have been very impressed that this is his starting and finishing point: He is there to interpret the law, not to be an activist for his own personal opinion. He boasts a unanimous seal of approval from the gold standard, the American Bar Association. Throughout his extensive career in both the public and private sectors and through hour after hour of testimony, Judge Gorsuch has demonstrated an impartial commitment to the rule of law. This is another area in which legal minds from both sides of the aisle agree. Harvard Law School Professor Noah Feldman, himself no conservative, called it a ``truly terrible idea'' to try to force Judge Gorsuch, or any judge for that matter, to base their decisions on the parties involved. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, I know that Judge Gorsuch fully understands that the job of a judge is to interpret, not make, the law. As he himself said, ``A judge who likes every result he reaches is very likely a bad judge, reaching for results he prefers rather than those the law compels.'' This commitment to impartiality, regardless of those involved in individual cases, is further evidence his nomination should be confirmed rather than filibustered to death like we have seen today. Judge Gorsuch's record is evidence enough that he is an impartial judge committed to the Constitution. The opposition has said he is outside the mainstream. That also doesn't hold up. In 97 percent of his 2,700 cases, judges who also heard the cases unanimously ruled with Judge Gorsuch. In 99 percent of his cases, he was not a dissenting vote. The other side is consistent in saying he is not mainstream. Seriously? How much more mainstream does he have to be? To that point, Judge Gorsuch has drawn praise from both liberals and conservatives alike. Former President Obama's Acting Solicitor General called Judge Gorsuch ``an extraordinary judge and man.'' He is not alone in that assessment of Judge Gorsuch. Mainstream media outlets across the country have praised this nominee to the Supreme Court. Recently, the USA Today Editorial Board wrote: ``Gorsuch's credentials are impeccable . . . he might well show the independence the nation needs at this moment in its history.'' The Washington Post's Editorial Board wrote: We are likely to disagree with Mr. Gorsuch on a variety of major legal questions. That is different from saying that he is unfit to serve. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board wrote: ``No one can replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, but President Trump has made an excellent attempt by nominating appellate Judge Neil Gorsuch as the ninth justice.'' As I have noted, the minority party's move to filibuster Judge Gorsuch is not rooted in any actual precedent in the U.S. Senate. It also clearly has nothing to do with Judge Gorsuch himself. By any and all objective measure, he is a mainstream, well-qualified nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. That is a point agreed upon by liberals and conservatives alike. Yet here we are still today throwing out almost 230 years of tradition, purely because of politics. This body must rise above the self- manufactured gridlock. Our last President, according to constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, created a constitutional crisis. It was caused by shutting down the Senate and creating the fourth arm of government, the regulators, and threatening the very balance of our three-branch system. It allowed the former President, through regulatory mandates and Executive orders, to basically fundamentally change the direction of the country without Congress. Given this threat to the Constitution, at this point in our history, we absolutely need a jurist on the Supreme Court who will bring a balanced view and impartial commitment to the rule of law. It is imperative we confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch tomorrow--a principled, thoughtful jurist--to the U.S. Supreme Court. If we can't confirm this individual, who is absolutely in the middle of the profile agreed to by past Democrats and Republicans alike, who in the world will we ever be able to confirm? Seriously, if we can't get together on this individual, who is in the mainstream in the middle of the profile? How in the world are we ever going to save Social Security, Medicare, all the other critical issues that are before this body? Bipartisan compromise is what this body was built on. I call on my colleagues to put self-interest and even party interest aside for the Nation's interest. I count it an honor to be in this body. It is a sobering responsibility, but I am very optimistic when men or women of the character of a Neil Gorsuch are willing to go through this grueling exercise that we put them through in order to serve. Because of that, I am proud tonight to be a part of a majority that stood up and precluded this from happening. I am so excited that tomorrow we will confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch as the next Associate Justice to the United States Supreme Court. I yield back my time.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about one of the greatest honors and privileges that we enjoy here in the Senate. As outlined in article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, one of the real honors of serving here in the Senate is the opportunity to offer advice and consent for nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. This body has historically treated it in such a solemn manner that in over 230 years of our history, no nominee to the Supreme Court has ever been denied a seat through the use of a partisan filibuster. Unfortunately, right now, Members--colleagues from the other side of the aisle--are threatening that very precedent. As I said on the floor earlier this year, President Donald Trump promised the American people he would nominate an unwavering supporter of the Constitution to fill the vacancy left by the late Justice Scalia. This President has kept his promise. He has nominated somebody who was actually confirmed here in the Senate not that long ago by a voice vote by Members who are still here in the Senate, many of them. This was a nomination to the Tenth Circuit, a role that this man, the nominee, filled with great honor and much distinction. Judge Neil Gorsuch's record of service lives up to the highest standards for a Federal judge. His academic and legal records are impeccable. He has demonstrated a keen understanding and appreciation for the rule of law, and he spoke so articulately in hour after hour of interrogation, actually, in his confirmation hearing just last week. Most importantly, Judge Gorsuch has repeatedly demonstrated his commitment to the Constitution and to our founding principles of economic opportunity, fiscal responsibility, limited government, and most important, individual liberty. His testimony last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee was masterful. It absolutely convinced me that he is the man for this job. Judge Gorsuch listened to questions, carefully responded thoughtfully, and he gave an indication into his own demeanor that he would use in the Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch listened to questions carefully over and over. He illustrated the ability to show a balance of judgment, which is what we look for in a lifetime appointment like this. He made it abundantly clear that the role of the judicial branch is to interpret--not to make law but to interpret the law. In my own individual meeting with Judge Gorsuch, these same qualities stood out. I was very impressed with his disarming nature and ability to talk about issues without necessarily showing bias of his own opinion. Because of all this, I know he will serve as a Justice in the mold of Justice Scalia, that of a balanced judiciary member. I should also point out that this is not a partisan view point. Conservatives and liberals have come out in support of Judge Gorsuch's confirmation over and over through the past week since his nomination. Neal Katyal, who served as Acting Solicitor General under former President Obama, as a matter of fact, has described Judge Gorsuch as ``an extraordinary judge and man.'' The American Bar Association, which many members of this body hold as a gold standard for judicial nominees, actually gave Judge Gorsuch its highest rating--something they don't do very often. They did so unanimously, by the way. Those who know Judge Gorsuch best, regardless of their political persuasion, have offered ample praise and abiding respect for this well-qualified nominee. If confirmed, I have full faith that Judge Gorsuch's rulings will be just and rooted in the letter of the law. This nomination and confirmation come at a time in the history of this Republic when it is absolutely crucial that we have a balanced jurist as the ninth member of the Supreme Court. Jonathan Turley, constitutional law professor at George Washington University right here in Washington, says that this past administration created a constitutional crisis the likes of which our country has never seen. Professor Turley talks about how a President has shown future Presidents a new precedent of how to run the government without Congress by blocking the Senate and actually creating the fourth arm of government--the regulators. This is a time we have to have a jurist who will bring a balanced view for all Americans to be represented in the Supreme Court. I am proud to have the opportunity to support this nominee. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to put partisan interest aside, to put the best interest of the country first, and to confirm Neil Gorsuch as the next Justice of the Supreme Court. I take this as a huge privilege to speak out today, and I will speak more next week on the history of this nomination. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I yield my time.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, today I mourn the loss of LTG Harold ``Hal'' Gregory Moore, Jr., and to honor his life and memory as one of Georgia's great citizens and military heroes. Having served in the U.S. Army for 32 years, Lieutenant General Moore was known for valiantly and courageously protecting his fellow Americans during the Korean and Vietnam wars and for always leading by example. He is perhaps best known for leading the 1st Battalion, 7th Calvary Regiment in the first major battle against North Vietnamese forces in the la Drang Valley on November 14, 1965. During that 4-day battle-- which would set the tone for the entire conflict--then-Lieutenant Colonel Moore kept the promise he had made to his men: that he would be the first to set foot on the battlefield, the last to step off, and that, dead or alive, he would leave no man behind. For his leadership and dedication to his men at la Drang, he was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for valor. Lieutenant General Moore passed away on February 10, 2017, leaving behind 5 children and 11 grandchildren. He was buried with his wife of 55 years, Julia Compton Moore, at the Main Post Cemetery in Fort Benning, GA. His funeral was attended by more than 500 people, showcasing the extent to which his service, sacrifice, and leadership touched the lives of countless others. We will forever remember and forever aspire to live our lives in the spirit of selflessness, bravery, kindness, and compassion with which Lieutenant General Moore led his.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in defense of a dear colleague of ours who is now the Attorney General of our Nation, Jeff Sessions. He is my friend. More importantly, he is a former colleague of this very body. He is a man of integrity. He is a man of principle. I trust him, and I take him at his word. Furthermore, he has repeatedly said just today that he will, in fact, recuse himself if and when it becomes appropriate. In my opinion, it is not appropriate right now, but if it ever were to become appropriate, he has said, without hesitation, that he would. I have really never witnessed anything quite like this in my brief time here in the Senate. The last 2 years have been very interesting, but never have I seen the hypocrisy that we see going on around this one issue. It is increasingly clear that the minority party is singularly focused on sabotaging this new administration at every turn, and today is no exception. They have exercised procedural rules in the Senate time and again, beyond the intent of the Founders' design, in order to stop President Trump from even getting his team in place--his very Cabinet. Our President today, as we stand here in this well, cannot have a staff meeting because he doesn't have all of his Cabinet members in place. As for the Cabinet members who have been confirmed, the minority party seems equally fixated on finding any red herring they can ultimately find to undermine the individual's character. We have literally reached the point where Members of this body are slandering former colleagues for having and taking the same opportunities afforded to them. This morning, my colleague, the senior Senator from Missouri, tweeted that she had never, ``EVER'' met with or taken a call from the Russian Ambassador. But her own Twitter account proved that she has at least twice in the last 4 years. Thirty Members of this body, as a matter of fact, met with a Russian Ambassador and Ambassadors from other nations in 2015 for a sales pitch on President Obama's deal with Iran. Many of them, including the senior Senator from Missouri, were open supporters at that time of candidates in the President's race. In the process of this hypocrisy, the minority party is prohibiting us from taking action on legislation that would solve many of the problems that have manifested themselves over the previous 8 years. Make no mistake, Russia is a traditional rival whose actions pose a definite threat to global security and even our own security here at home. Their actions over the last 8 years have helped destabilize Eastern Europe and the Middle East. It was the inaction and refusal to lead of the past administration--a policy that the minority party followed hook, line, and sinker--that created a power vacuum around the world and allowed this Russian resurgence. I have said this repeatedly, and I am going to continue to do so. Until there is definite proof that Russians changed a single vote from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump, I will be focused on one thing; that is, doing exactly what the American people sent us here to do. I encourage my colleagues to do the same, which is to not engage in political theater for the sake of partisan politics, but to work together to get America back to work. I yield the floor.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise tonight to speak about the opportunity our country has to move this country forward. I appreciate the comments by my good friend from Michigan. I appreciate all the comments in this hallowed ground called the U.S. Senate. But I have to say that while I agree on some points, I disagree on others. The one I am really troubled by tonight is the fact the other side is creating the ultimate shutdown in government right now. We had an election. Our democracy has worked. We have a new person in the White House. We have a new direction for our country. Yet this person in the White House cannot even get his team approved in the U.S. Senate. After some 27 days, I think President Obama had 26 of his Cabinet and other appointees already confirmed. At this point, President Trump has only 13 of his nominees. Quite frankly, had we not turned the Senate on 24/7 over the last few weeks, it would be until June or July of this year before we could get the full slate of just the 15 Cabinet officers confirmed. That is no way to run the Federal Government and, indeed, shows the hypocrisy of the other side. They complain about shut down this and shut down that. What is happening right now in the U.S. Senate is that the other side is shutting down this administration from getting on with the people's business of what they elected him to do. Today, after 8 years of failed fiscal policies that have produced the weakest recovery in 70 years, the lowest GDP growth on a per capita basis in our history, a devastating time that left 4 million women in poverty after the last 8 years and left many people struggling to get from payday to payday--after those 8 years, tonight I am actually very encouraged to finally be debating pro-growth tax ideas that can actually grow the economy and put people back to work. We now have an enormous moment of opportunity to change the direction of our country and unleash a new era of economic growth and prosperity for every American. President Trump has repeatedly said that job one is growing the economy. Personally, having worked in most parts of the world in my career, I see this so differently from Washington. My perspective is that of someone who has a global business perspective, not unlike that of our President. I know the way forward is not complicated. We absolutely can grow this economy. There are three things this administration is already talking about to grow the economy: One, they have said we need to deal with this archaic, outdated, and noncompetitive tax structure that we have; second, we need to push back on these arcane regulations that have sucked the very life out of our economy; third, we need to unleash the God-given energy potential that we have in our country today. The bottom line is we have to create a more level playing field generated by trade negotiations to allow us to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the world. The first two pieces of these changes are the changes to the Tax Code and rolling back the regulatory regime. Several ideas from both President Trump and Congress have surfaced in recent days to improve our Tax Code: No. 1, lowering individual rates and cleaning up some of the deductions to simplify the individual code; No. 2, lowering the corporate tax rate to become more competitive with the rest of the world and cleaning up corporate welfare deductions that confuse the competition among players here at home and create winners and losers inadvertently; and, No. 3, dealing with the archaic repatriation tax. We are the last country in the world that has this tax, and it penalizes our companies for competing abroad. These three components of changing the Tax Code will make us more competitive with the rest of the world, stimulate economic investment, and spawn a new era of economic innovation in America. These changes would help millions of Americans who have been crushed by this stagnant economy for much too long. I am encouraged that today there are so many of my colleagues in Congress interested in generating new pro-growth ideas. It is a new day in Washington. I have long been an advocate of simplifying the way we fund our Federal Government. In my opinion, the best way to do that is ideally with a new system, like the fair tax, for example, which would move us to a totally new tax system and completely eliminate the personal, corporate, and payroll taxes we suffer through to date. I think all of these ideas need to be considered, and none should be taken off the table arbitrarily. Having said that, one idea bears much scrutiny at this point in time, and that is the so-called border adjustment tax now being discussed in Congress. It would hammer consumers, shut down economic growth, and ultimately grow the size of government. In the last 16 years, under both Republican and Democratic Presidents, the Federal Government has grown from $2.4 trillion in constant dollars to $3.8 trillion last year--some 60 percent growth in just two Presidencies, one Republican and one Democrat. Tax schemes similar to the border adjustment tax in Europe grew the size of those governments in Europe by more than 60 percent. That is the last thing we need to be talking about right now, after we just experienced a similar type of growth in our government over the last 16 years. Growing government with a new layer of complexity on top of our existing income tax system is the last thing we need to be doing at this point in time, when we should be talking about, How do we downsize the Federal Government, make our system more competitive with the rest of the world, create jobs, and create the atmosphere for capital formation and innovation again? Historically, lawmakers have crammed numerous proposals into single, massive, overreaching bills. It is the Washington way. Those bills have often hurt the very people that they claim to champion. When bad ideas get mixed with good ideas, the bad ideas oftentimes become law. That is exactly what could happen here if changes to the individual code, the corporate rate, the repatriation tax, and this border adjustment tax are combined into one sweeping bill. This is exactly what Washington has historically done, and the results have been devastating. Each of these proposals could be considered independently and evaluated on their own merits. There is no reason we can't do that. That is not possible today because many people here believe we are locked into the Washington scoring equation instead of looking at the real economic long term value of any of these ideas. Many other countries, such as the United Kingdom, have faced these opportunities, made decisions, and acted accordingly without combining other extraneous ideas, and the results speak for themselves. Today, the United States is in the least competitive position it has been, I believe, in the last 100 years. In the last 70 years, America has enjoyed the greatest economic miracle in the history of mankind. It was developed on the back of innovation, capital formation, and the rule of law, combined with the best workforce in the history of the world. Those are four things that America possesses uniquely, and which many other countries are working hard to emulate. For too long, the strength of our economy has been held down by politicians in Washington and the unintended consequences that occur when they try to interfere with the free enterprise system. It is time to trust that free enterprise system to get this economy going again, and change the rules to create a more competitive environment here at home that will allow us to compete overseas on a level playing field. It is time to simplify our individual Tax Code, reduce our corporate tax rates, eliminate conflicting business tax deductions, and eliminate the repatriation tax so we can once again become competitive with the rest of the world. In recent decades, many other countries have made these changes, and we are losing our competitive edge. Today, I am encouraged to see both Congress and the White House working together on policies that will potentially grow our economy and bring relief to businesses and families who have been crushed by improper fiscal policies that are driven by political attempts to manage our economy. Now is exactly the time to get these changes right. We have an opportunity to change our Tax Code to a more competitive structure that doesn't pick winners and losers, that doesn't penalize people for successes, and that allows us to compete with the rest of the world on a level playing field. I like our chances if we can accomplish that, but let's not confuse the issue with what may seem acceptable in Washington but is devastating back home to men and women who are trying to create jobs in their local economies. We need to free up capital. We need to make sure the rule of law supports the Constitution for every American. The American people deserve Congress treating these issues individually and independently to generate a simplified approach to funding our government and growing our economy. I hear the other side whine about not hearing any proposals coming out of the White House. Donald Trump has been talking about what he would do with the economy for the past 2 years. There is no mystery. He wants to grow the economy. Job one, he said, is growing the economy. That doesn't mean for the rich. That means for the working men and women of America. I believe they have a plan. It includes adjusting our tax system, pushing back on unnecessary regulations that are sucking the very life out of our economy and, finally, once and for all, unleashing this great energy potential that we have. We already see moves today on some of the regulatory fronts, where we see the new Secretary of HHS issuing a new rule today. We see the new leaders that have been confirmed already taking action in this administration. I, for one, am anxious to move forward with this debate. I applaud our compatriots in the House for bringing up these ideas. I look forward to an open and active conversation, but now is the time for the other side to begin confirming these nominees so that we can get this economy growing. I know you also are aware that our military is in devastating shape now after 8 years of disinvestment and 15 years of war. There is enough blame to go around here. This is not about the blame game. This is about getting this economic situation right where we can fund our military so we can defend our country. I am very concerned that the other side is putting politics in the way of solving some of these problems that we have that are so devastating to men and women who are disenfranchised in our economy and our men and women in uniform around the world who are put in danger every day because we are not funding our military the way we should. The time for rhetoric has passed. We are already past the tipping point of the most serious, I believe, physical crisis in our history. This debt crisis is very real. We don't need to grow the economy just to grow the economy. We have to grow the economy because it is one of several steps that are absolutely mandatory to solving this debt crisis, and we will not and cannot solve our national security crisis unless and until we solve this debt crisis. I am optimistic tonight because we are beginning to talk about these very issues. I yield my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise tonight actually to support the confirmation of my friend and fellow Georgian and our next Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Tom Price. I have known Dr. Price personally and worked with him for quite some time. He is a remarkable individual, and we should take comfort in his nomination to this important position because he has years of service and years of experience working with our Nation's health care system. He has been a practicing physician, a state legislator, and a Member of the House of Representatives. Dr. Price knows that government intrusion has already negatively impacted patient care in the last few years. He has years of professional experience as a physician and he is seen as a leading voice in health care policy. My colleagues across the aisle oppose him, they say primarily because of his opposition to the Affordable Care Act. Well, the truth is, ObamaCare is collapsing under its own weight today. In my State of Georgia, this year alone, after double-digit increases last year, premiums are up 33 percent this year. Nationwide, premiums are up 26 percent. So the other side talks about it being affordable. People back home--I am getting letters every week about the fact that people are withdrawing from ObamaCare because of the increase in premiums, and most insidious are the increases in deductibles. Some two-thirds increase--67 percent--increase in deductibles. You know, we don't have to worry about repealing ObamaCare because it is collapsing under its own weight. We just have to sit back and watch it die of its own volition. Here is how it is going to happen. It is very simple. In my State, out of 159 counties, we have 99 counties that only have one health care provider because of the Affordable Care Act. Even in that carrier, there are limited insurance programs available to their customers. What happens if that carrier decides they cannot profitably afford to be in Georgia? Then 99 counties will lose any health care carrier. Where do they go? They will be fined under the Affordable Care Act for not having insurance. Where do they go? Well, the Federal Government has an answer, obviously. The U.S. Government can always step in and be the insurer of last resort. Is that not the single-payer strategy that was behind this all along? It is not what American mainstream voters want. The fearmongering that is going on right now about any potential repeal is just hypocrisy. I believe there is no question that there is a plan. We know there is, but to fix ObamaCare is very difficult relatively to the way it was built to begin with. It was based on the wrong premise; that is, that the Federal Government is going to step in and take care of everybody's health care. If you like the Veterans' Administration, you are going to love health care done by the Federal Government in the Affordable Care Act. By the way, if you like the way the post office is run, you are going to love the way the Federal Government runs our health care. With all of that in mind, the No. 1 objective of Dr. Price that I have heard today and throughout this week has been nothing more than the vitriolic argument that he opposes ObamaCare. That is sad. I think we are taking a great American who is willing to volunteer and become a member of this President's Cabinet and try to make health care better for every American. I can't think of another person in this country who is more qualified for this timely responsibility. Dr. Price will work to end Washington's takeover of our health care system, and I know he will work tirelessly for a health care system that compassionately improves the lives of every American. Truly, there is no one more qualified to serve as our next Health and Human Services Secretary than my good friend, Dr. Tom Price. I am proud to support him. I am glad we are finally grinding our way to his confirmation later tonight, but while we talk about his confirmation, we also need to talk about this frog walk that the opposition is making us go through to get these nominees confirmed in this Cabinet. This is taking the longest time to confirm a Cabinet since George Washington. We see extreme delays, longer delays than we have seen at any time since the first President was in office. Imagine if Hillary Clinton was President right now. Imagine. Imagine if Republicans in the Senate were doing what the people across the aisle are doing today. Imagine if we were delaying her Cabinet nominees to the point where we are now confirming them at a pace slower than any time since George Washington was in office in 1789. Imagine. Imagine how the mainstream media would be screaming about that story and how it would be a very different story than what is being told today. This last week, the Senate demonstrated exactly the type of behavior that folks in my home State of Georgia, and I must say around the country, are absolutely fed up with and sick and tired after. They know this is exactly why Washington is gridlocked and why we are not getting results for the American people. We are wasting time. People are out of work. The other side says this is very real. Of course it is very real. It is time to move on. We have a new President. Put his team in place. The American people are being hurt by and paying attention to this failure of responsibility. Real results can only be achieved if Washington politicians prioritize the well-being of Americans, rather than their own individual political careers and their next election cycle. The minority party is well within their rights, of course, to dissent and oppose the President's nominees on solid ground. Republicans have done that in the past, but at no time in history have we seen this sort of frog-walk delay being perpetrated on the people of America. They are using the rules of the Senate inappropriately, in my mind, to slow down and bring to a halt the confirmation process of a President they don't support. No President since George Washington has had to endure this sort of historic delay, obstruction, and slow- walking we have seen here since President Trump was inaugurated. If the minority party had its way, all Cabinet-level nominees would not be confirmed until June or July of this year. By the way, that is one-eighth of the first term of this President--12 percent is being wasted right now--if, in fact, the Republican leadership in this Senate were not doing what it is doing. The minority party knows it can't stop any of these nominees on their own merits individually. So they are grinding the entire process to a halt using procedural delays. This is a clear abuse, in my mind, of the intent of the rules to protect the minority, authored by James Madison. To combat that, the Republican leadership has kept the doors of the Senate open 24/7. The people of America should know that we are here doing their business and doing their bidding to make sure we proceed as fast as we can to the confirmation of this President's nominees. We have to move past these delays perpetrated by the minority party intended to do nothing but to delay the potential impact of this new President. It is time to get results. The American people have spoken. President Trump has named his team. He is ready to get to work. He is already showing that he is willing to move at a business pace, not a government pace. The people in Washington, looking at this President through the lens of the political establishment, are having a hard time dealing with him, but I have to say, the quality of nominees is something we have not seen for decades, if ever. It is time to put these people in their responsible positions and let them go to work. He is already moving at a pace that we have not seen in many Presidencies. Like me, President Trump came here to focus on getting results and changing the direction of the country. He has a plan to do just that. We need to get on with that business, debate those issues, come to some conclusion, compromise where necessary, but get government moving, as the Senate has done for every previous President. We should confirm this President's nominees now and spend our time debating those critical issues that will get our country moving again, to change the direction of our country, to put people back to work. Things like growing our economy, updating our antiquated tax system, unleashing our full energy potential, updating our antiquated and unnecessary regulatory regime, fixing the broken budget process, changing our outdated immigration system, saving Social Security and Medicare, and, yes, addressing the spiraling health care costs that, no, the Affordable Care Act did not even attempt to address. The American people elected a new President. That President has named his slate of potential nominees to be Cabinet members. It is time to cut the foolishness and get down to business. I yield the floor.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, during the Presidential campaign last year, President Donald J. Trump promised the American people he would nominate an unwavering supporter of the U.S. Constitution to the Supreme Court. He has now kept that promise. I personally applaud the President for nominating Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. He is an outstanding choice. Throughout his career, Judge Gorsuch has been a stalwart, standing strong in support of the U.S. Constitution. He has repeatedly shown his commitment to our country's founding principles of economic opportunity, fiscal responsibility, limited government, and individual liberty. These principles have served to make our Nation exceptional throughout our history. Each branch of government has the shared charge of preserving and protecting those rights for all Americans. Judge Gorsuch has had a remarkable career in both the public and private sectors and has demonstrated a keen understanding and appreciation of the law. He has an outstanding academic record. He is an outsider to the political nonsense here in this town. He has an impeccable judicial record, and he is actually called a ``judge's judge'' in the Scalia mold. He is a mainstream judge. Actually, when he was confirmed in his current position, he was confirmed by 11 Democrats who are still in this body today, including Senators Lee, Feinstein, Schumer, and Durbin. Clearly, Judge Gorsuch will honor the formidable and impressive legacy of defending the Constitution left by Justice Scalia. Throughout last year, I and other Members in the Senate held our ground in saying that no nominee to the Supreme Court should be confirmed until after the Presidential election. We believed the American people deserved a voice in the process. We also knew that the hyper-partisanship and politics of a Presidential election cycle should never have any place in the nomination and confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice, which we all know is a lifetime appointment. The integrity of the advice and consent process, clearly spelled out in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, was at stake. In protecting the integrity of the sacred constitutional process, we did our job. Our position was exactly the same, ironically, as held by former Vice President Biden, former Minority Leader Harry Reid, and others in earlier times and earlier debates. Now that President Trump has announced his nomination, it is time to continue doing our job. I hope the minority leader and Members of the minority party will walk away from the hypocrisy they are already demonstrating this year. Last June, the current minority leader tweeted: ``In order for justice to remain a pillar of this nation, we must have a functioning judicial branch. The [Supreme Court of the United States] must have nine [sitting Justices].'' Later that same month, the minority leader said before the U.S. Senate: ``Every day that goes by without a ninth Justice is another day the American people's business is not getting done.'' So why would the current minority leader and some of the Democrats in this body now say they will filibuster any nominee to the Supreme Court before even knowing who would be nominated? The minority leader railed on the Senate floor. Yet last month he went on CNN and said: ``We absolutely would keep the seat open . . . we will fight it tooth and nail, as long as we have to.'' Again, this was before a nominee was even announced. The political theater of 2016 has no place in the confirmation process this year. Now is the time to govern, not to engage in the far- off political theater of 2018 and 2020. As we move forward in this process, I hope the minority leader and my colleagues across the aisle will remember that. I hope they will put the integrity of the Constitution before the scope of their political ambition and their bitterness about last year's election outcome. I would remind my colleagues across the aisle that Republicans put aside political theater to confirm two Justices to the Supreme Court under both President Obama and President Clinton. Now President Trump has nominated Neil Gorsuch, who is a principled judge who will put the Constitution of the United States and the rights of all Americans at the forefront of any decision he takes. Judge Gorsuch's record of service and his commitment to the Constitution is quite clear. I am looking forward to voting to confirm his nomination and to ensure that we have a fully functioning High Court. I strongly urge my colleagues across the aisle to put aside their partisan self-interest and do what is right for our country. Our children and our children's children deserve nothing less. Travel Ban Mr. President, I also would like to speak momentarily to the President's recent Executive order to strengthen our refugee screening process that he thinks will protect America, and I agree with him. The minority leader's tear-jerking performance over the past weekend belongs at the Screen Actors Guild awards, not in a serious discussion of what it takes to keep America safe. Folks back home are fed up with Members of this body stirring up global hysteria to score political points. Let's be clear. This temporary action is not a so-called Muslim ban, and no Muslim ban has been put into place. As a matter of fact, the five countries most heavily populated with Muslims around the world were not included in this temporary pause on movement. In fact, almost 90 percent of the world's Muslim population is not even remotely affected by this temporary pause. The seven countries that were included in President Trump's Executive order--Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen--were included for specific reasons. Each of these nations was previously identified by President Obama as posing national security threats to the United States. This is not a target at any religion; it is simply a temporary pause in the movement of individuals from nations of concern in order to assess whether our current screening system is in the best possible shape to protect Americans. I am apoplectic that Members of the minority party and the former President of the United States would actually say or imply otherwise. Their comments encouraging civil unrest and disobedience are both deplorable and unacceptable. The failed foreign policy of President Obama in Syria and the broader Middle East has made the world more dangerous than at any time in my lifetime and has helped to create the current refugee crisis around the world. We are at war with ISIS, and we know they have identified and targeted our refugee system as a point of weakness. They have already exploited the refugee systems of nations in Europe, carrying out terrorist attacks and killing innocent people. It would be malfeasance for our President not to take action and immediately review our current screening process to ensure we are helping those in need and keeping terrorists out. This temporary pause will allow us to assess our current screening process and strengthen it as needed. Moving forward, the implementation of this temporary pause must be efficient and effective. During this screening review period, we should avoid overreacting to the responsible steps that have been taken to prioritize the protection of all Americans. It is totally irresponsible and ridiculous for the minority leader, Members of this body, the former President, President Obama, and others to suggest that it is anything other than a rational, responsible step to keep America safe and deal with the ISIS threat once and for all. I yield my time.