John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last week we got the first estimate of economic growth for the first quarter of 2019, and the news was excellent. The economy grew at a robust 3.2 percent in the first quarter of 2019, smashing expectations. The news is particularly notable because the first quarter of the year is typically regarded as a weak quarter for growth. Then, this morning, CNBC reported that 275,000 jobs were created in April--also, far exceeding expectations. And of course these are just the latest pieces of good news about the economy. The economy is thriving, unemployment is low, job creation is up, personal income is up, wages are up, business investment is up, and much more. How did we get here? Well, just a couple of years ago, our economy was struggling. Some experts were predicting that weak growth would be the new normal and the economic progress we have made over the past 2 years wasn't supposed to happen. At the beginning of 2017, the Congressional Budget Office projected growth of 2.3 percent for 2017, 2 percent for 2018, and just 1.7 percent for 2019. Actual growth, of course, exceeded those numbers: 2.5 percent for 2017, 3 percent for 2018--a full percentage point higher than the CBO's projection--and 2019 is clearly off to a great start. So, again, how did we get here? Well, after President Trump was elected and Republicans took office, we set out to do something about the economy. We knew that Americans were struggling. Recovery from the great recession was long and slow, wages were stagnant, and too many families were living paycheck to paycheck. American families needed relief, and Republicans were committed to giving it to them. That meant getting our economy going again. If the economy isn't thriving, then, American families aren't thriving. You need a strong economy to produce the kinds of jobs, wages, and opportunities that American workers need to flourish. So we got right to work trimming some of the burdensome regulations that were acting as a drag on economic growth, and we made it clear to businesses that we were committed to creating the conditions that would allow them to create new jobs and opportunities for American workers. But we knew that while cutting oppressive regulations was important, more needed to be done. So at the end of 2017, we passed a historic reform of our outdated Tax Code. We lowered tax rates for businesses, expanded business owners' ability to invest in their operations and their workers, and made American businesses more competitive in the global economy. Now we are seeing the results: a thriving economy that is producing good jobs, better wages and benefits, and more opportunities for American workers. Importantly, the benefits of this economic growth are being spread far and wide. In March, the Wall Street Journal noted: All sorts of people who have previously had trouble landing a job are now finding work. Racial minorities, those with less education and people working in the lowest-paying jobs are getting bigger pay raises and, in many cases, experiencing the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for their groups. They are joining manufacturing workers, women in their prime working years, Americans with disabilities and those with criminal records, among others, in finding improved job prospects after years of disappointment. That, again, is from the Wall Street Journal. Getting our economy going again was a huge part of tax reform. We wanted to make life better for American workers, and we knew that a strong economy was the only way to create prosperity for Americans. We wanted to make life better for American workers, and we wanted to make sure that their families and the employees in the workplace all participated in a stronger economy. So we focused on creating the conditions for economic growth. But that is not all we did with tax reform. We also cut individual tax rates across the board, we doubled the child tax credit, and we nearly doubled the standard deduction. Thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the average family of four received a tax cut of more than $2,000 in 2018. We also made it easier for millions of Americans to file their taxes by reducing the need to itemize. In addition to promoting economic growth generally, we created opportunity zones to focus specifically on helping to revitalize distressed communities. Championed by Senator Scott, the opportunities zones provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provide incentives for long-term investment in low-income communities, with the goal of creating new jobs and economic opportunity for local residents. We also took action to provide additional support to families by creating an incentive for employers to offer paid family leave to their workers. Two-plus years ago, Republicans in Congress and the President set out with one goal in mind--to make life better for American families. I am proud that tax reform has expanded opportunity for Americans and made life easier for families, and we are not stopping here. Republicans will keep working to ensure that the economic growth that we are experiencing continues and that every American has access to a secure and a prosperous future. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, shortly before Easter, the junior Senator from Vermont introduced a new version of his so-called Medicare for All plan. Given the staggering pricetag of his previous plan, it was reasonable to wonder if he would think about producing something that was at least a bit more modest and achievable. So what is the new plan like? Is it any more realistic? Did he figure out a way to actually pay for a government takeover of healthcare? Well, the answer is no. In fact, the new plan is even worse. It is more unrealistic, more costly, and even more likely to result in massive tax hikes on middle-class Americans. Analysis of a previous version of the Vermont Senator's Medicare for All plan found that it would cost $32 trillion over 10 years. Now, to put that number in perspective, that is more money than the Federal Government has spent combined in the last 8 years on everything-- defense, law enforcement, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, the environment, agriculture, Foreign Affairs--everything. Here is what the Washington Post had to say back in 2017 about the pricetag for government-run healthcare: But the government's price tag would be astonishing. When Sen. Bernie Sanders . . . proposed a ``Medicare for all'' health plan in his presidential campaign, the nonpartisan Urban Institute figured that it would raise government spending by $32 trillion over 10 years, requiring a tax increase so huge that even the democratic socialist Mr. Sanders did not propose anything close to it. Fast-forward to today, and, once again, the Senator from Vermont has proposed a government-run health plan without even coming close to presenting a way to pay for it. The only difference this time is that the pricetag is likely to be even higher--much higher. Why? Because the Senator from Vermont's new plan also includes coverage for long-term care--an incredibly expensive part of the healthcare system. The Democrats' last attempt to have the government run a long-term care program fell apart before it was even implemented because the program was not financially viable. Thirty-two trillion dollars was a staggering enough figure, and now we are talking about having the Federal Government spend even more. Where do the Democrats think we are going to find the money? The list of proposed tax hikes that the Senator from Vermont released would not even come close to covering the estimated cost of his original plan, much less the cost of his new, expanded Medicare fantasy. This is not a plan that can be paid for by using the Democrats' favorite solution of taxing the rich. If Medicare for All ever became law, it would be paid for on the backs of middle- class families. It is impossible to have a discussion of Medicare for All--or maybe we should call it Medicare for None given the fact that it would end Medicare as we know it--without focusing on the insane pricetag. Yet that is not the only unrealistic aspect of this bill. The Senator from Vermont is proposing to implement his plan in 4 years. That is right-- in 4 years. The Obama administration had 3\1/2\ years to implement the ObamaCare exchanges, which were intended to cover a tiny fraction of the number of people who would be covered under Medicare for All. As I am sure most Americans remember, the government couldn't put together a working website in that time period. The idea that the government could successfully transition more than 180 million Americans into government-run healthcare in the space of 4 years is ludicrous, not to mention what that healthcare would be like when Americans would have made it into the system. As a recent Vox article pointed out, the Senator from Vermont is proposing extremely generous benefits--benefits that are substantially more generous than those that are offered by other countries with government-run healthcare. Yet, again, he has no viable way of paying for any of this. The likelihood that Americans would actually see all of those benefits is slim. When the government reaches a point where it can't pay for all of the benefits it promised, it has basically two options. It can raise taxes even further--and that would undoubtedly happen; I think that is a given--but the government would also inevitably have to turn to the other option: the kind of control over healthcare we have seen in other countries with socialized medicine. Americans would also undoubtedly soon find themselves facing that other hallmark of socialized medicine: long wait times for care. The leader recently said on the floor that Republicans stand for ``preserving what works and fixing what doesn't.'' That is exactly it. Republicans know that our healthcare system is not perfect. We are committed to finding solutions to make healthcare more affordable, but we don't think tearing down our entire system is the answer. We can address the healthcare challenges we face without ripping away Americans' health insurance and forcing them into a government-run, one-size-fits-all plan and then raising their taxes to pay for it. We can make healthcare more affordable without destroying Medicare as we know it. Democrats' socialist healthcare fantasy sounds nice in theory, but the reality would be anything but--huge new tax hikes for the middle class, long wait times and lower quality of care, government involvement in your healthcare decisions, and no choice at all when it comes to your insurance. Let's hope the Democratic Party halts its mad rush to the extreme left before Americans are forced to live under the ugly reality of socialized medicine. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, tax day is not anyone's favorite day, but thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, millions of American families are facing a less painful tax bill this year. They are also seeing a lot of economic opportunity. When Republicans took office after President Trump's election, we were determined to make things better for American families. Under the Obama administration, the economy had stagnated, wages barely grew, job growth was weak, business investment growth was low. Republicans knew that if we wanted to make life better for families, we had to turn that around. American families can't thrive if the economy isn't thriving. You need a strong, growing economy to give Americans access to good wages, good jobs, and real opportunities. So we got right to work. We repealed burdensome regulations that were acting as a drag on economic growth, and we passed a comprehensive reform of our Nation's outdated Tax Code. Why the Tax Code? Well, the Tax Code has a huge effect on our economy. A small business owner facing a huge tax bill is unlikely to be able to expand her business or to hire a new employee. In fact, if her tax burden is heavy enough, she may not even be able to keep her business open. Similarly, a large business is going to find it pretty hard to create jobs or improve benefits for employees if it is struggling to stay competitive against foreign businesses that are paying much less in taxes. Prior to the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, our Tax Code was not helping our economy. In fact, it was doing the opposite, and so we made reforming our Tax Code a priority. Our goal with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was twofold: put more money in Americans' pockets immediately and get the economy going again to give Americans access to good jobs, good wages, and opportunities for the long term, and that is exactly what we did. To put more money in Americans' pockets right away, we cut tax rates for American families, doubled the child tax credit, and nearly doubled the standard deduction, and now families are seeing the effects. The liberal Tax Policy Center reports that under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, 90 percent of middle-class families are seeing a tax cut. For 2018, the typical family of four saw a tax break of more than $2,000. That is more money every month to put toward a family vacation, a home or car repair, or a kid's braces, or to tuck away in savings for a rainy day. That is not all. As I said earlier, families aren't just seeing a lower tax bill; they are also seeing more economic opportunity thanks to the economic growth spurred by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered tax rates across the board for owners of small- and medium-size businesses, farms, and ranches. It lowered our Nation's massive corporate tax rate, which up until January 1 of last year was the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. It expanded business owners' ability to recover the cost of investments they make in their businesses, which frees up cash they can reinvest in their operations and in their workers. It brought the U.S. international tax system into the 21st century so that American businesses are not operating at a competitive disadvantage relative to their foreign counterparts. Those measures have done exactly what they were supposed to do: Get our economy going again. Economic growth is up. Job creation is up. Wages are up. Personal income is up. Business investment is up. Unemployment is down. Since tax reform was enacted, job growth has averaged 215,000 jobs per month. That is almost twice--almost twice--the monthly average during the Obama administration. In 2018, for the first time ever, the number of jobs outnumbered the number of jobseekers; 2018 was the first time ever. The Department of Labor reports that the number of jobs available has now exceeded the number of those looking for work for 12 straight months. Unemployment has now been at or below 4 percent for 13 months. In the last week of March, the number of jobless claims hit its lowest level in 50 years. U.S. manufacturing, which saw thousands of job losses during the Obama years, is booming. Since tax reform was passed 15 months ago, the manufacturing industry has added thousands of jobs. Wages have been growing at or above 3 percent for 8 straight months. Since wages are growing faster than inflation, that is translating to a real increase in purchasing power for American consumers. Business investment is up. Since the passage of tax reform, business investment growth has averaged 7 percent, almost twice--almost twice-- what it averaged during the Obama administration. What do all of these numbers mean? They mean more and better jobs for jobseekers. They mean more money in your paycheck to spend or save for the future. They mean more and better opportunities to advance in your career. Thanks to tax reform, more families can afford to pay that orthodontist bill and still save some money for a family vacation. More families can afford to cover that unexpected car repair or plumber's bill. More families can afford to put a little extra away each month for the kids' education or for their retirement. I am proud that tax reform is making life better for American families. Republicans will continue working to secure the gains that we have made for the long term and to expand opportunities for hard- working Americans even further. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) would haved voted ``yea.''

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

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, there is one thing pretty much every American can agree on. It is that illegal robocalls are a major nuisance. Who hasn't been annoyed after answering the phone and discovering it is an automated message asking you to purchase some product or provide sensitive personal information? But, of course, these calls aren't merely a nuisance. Scammers use these calls to successfully prey on vulnerable populations, like the elderly, who may be less technologically savvy. It is no surprise that people are deceived. I think most of us have received robocalls that sounded pretty credible, and the practice of spoofing numbers adds another layer of deception. Scammers can disguise the actual number they are calling from so the call looks like it is coming from a legitimate number. You may recognize the number calling you as a trustworthy local number, but the actual call may be from a scam artist. I remember an article from my home State a couple of years ago that reported that scammers had successfully spoofed the number of the Watertown Police Department. So to anyone who received that call, it looked as if it was really the Watertown Police Department calling. If the source looks credible and the call sounds credible, it can be difficult not to believe it, which is why people fall prey to robocall scam artists every single day, sometimes with devastating consequences. Scammers' goal is to steal the kind of personal information that can be used to steal your money and your identity. When scammers are successful, they can destroy people's lives. There are laws and fines in place right now to prevent scam artists from preying on people through the telephone, but unfortunately, these measures have been insufficient. Almost a year ago today, when I was chairman of the Commerce Committee, I subpoenaed Adrian Abramovich, a notorious mass robocaller, to testify before the committee. His testimony made it clear that current fines are insufficient to discourage robocallers. Robocallers just figure that those fines are part of the cost of doing business. In addition, the Federal Communications Commission's anti-robocall enforcement efforts are currently hampered by a tight time window for pursuing violations. To address these problems, at the end of last year I introduced the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act, or the TRACED Act. Last week, my bipartisan legislation passed the Commerce Committee by unanimous vote. The TRACED Act provides tools to discourage illegal robocalls, protect consumers, and crack down on offenders. It expands the window in which the FCC can pursue intentional scammers from 1 year to 3 years, and in years 2 and 3, it increases the financial penalty for those individuals making robocalls from zero dollars to $10,000 per call to make it more difficult for robocallers to figure fines into their cost of doing business. It also requires telephone service providers to adopt new call verification technologies that would help to prevent illegal robocalls from reaching consumers. Importantly, it convenes a working group with representatives from the Department of Justice, the FCC, the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, State attorneys general, and others to identify ways to criminally prosecute illegal robocalling. Criminal prosecution of illegal robocalling can be challenging. Scammers are frequently based abroad and can quickly shut down shop before authorities can get to them, but I believe we need to find ways to hold scammers criminally accountable. There are few things more despicable than preying on and exploiting the vulnerable, and scammers should face criminal prosecution for the damage that they do. I am very pleased that the TRACED Act has now moved to the full Senate for consideration. I am grateful to Senator Markey for partnering with me on this legislation, and I am pleased that this bipartisan bill has been embraced by all 50 attorneys general, by the Commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission, and by major industry associations and leading consumer groups. Later this week, I will hold a hearing on the Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet, which I chair, to further examine the problem of illegal robocalling. I will work to get the TRACED Act to the President's desk as soon as possible. This legislation will not prevent all illegal robocalling, but it is a big step in the right direction. I look forward to helping consumers by enacting the TRACED Act's protections as soon as possible. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, under President Obama, our economy languished. Recovery from the recession was historically slow and economic growth for his last year in office was an anemic 1.6 percent. Of course, all of that meant reduced economic prospects for American families. Wages were stagnant, and jobs and opportunities were often few and far between. Republicans knew that if we wanted to improve life for American families, we needed to get our economy going again. As soon as we took office in 2017, we got right to work. We knew the biggest thing we had to do was overhaul our outdated Tax Code, which was acting as a major drag on economic growth. The Tax Code has a huge effect on economic growth and the kinds of jobs, wages, and opportunities available to American workers. A small business owner struggling to afford a heavy tax bill is unlikely to have the money to hire a new worker or expand her business. A larger business is going to find it hard to create jobs or improve benefits for employees if it is struggling to stay competitive against foreign businesses paying much less in taxes. Prior to the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, our Tax Code was not helping American workers. It was taking too much money from Americans' paychecks. It was making it difficult for businesses to grow and create jobs. So we passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to put more money in Americans' pockets, to spur economic growth, and expand opportunities for American workers. We cut tax rates for American families, doubled the child tax credit, and nearly doubled the standard deduction. We lowered tax rates across the board for owners of small- and medium-sized businesses, farms, and ranches. We lowered our Nation's massive corporate tax rate, which up until January 1 of last year was the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. We expanded business owners' ability to recover the cost of investments that they make in their businesses, which frees up cash that they can reinvest in their operations and in their workers, and we brought the U.S. international tax system into the 21st century so American businesses are not operating at a competitive disadvantage next to their foreign counterparts. I am proud to report that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is doing exactly what it was supposed to do. It is growing our economy. It is creating jobs, and it is expanding benefits and opportunities for American workers. Economic growth from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2018 was a strong 3 percent. The unemployment rate dropped to 3.8 percent in February, the 12th straight month that unemployment has been at or below 4 percent. That is the longest streak in nearly 50 years. The Department of Labor reports that the number of job openings has exceeded the number of job seekers for 11 straight months. The economy has added more than 5.3 million jobs since President Trump was elected. Job growth has averaged 209,000 jobs a month over the past 12 months, exceeding the 2017 average by 30,000 jobs a month. Wage growth has accelerated. Wages are growing at a rate of 3.4 percent, the seventh straight month in which wages have grown at a rate of 3 percent or greater. Median household income is at an alltime high. Business investment is up, which means more jobs and opportunities for American workers. U.S. manufacturing is booming; small business hiring recently hit a record high; and the list goes on. So what is the Democrats' response to tax reform success--continue or expand the policies that have made life better for American families? Well, the answer is no. Instead, Democrats are proposing policies that would result in massive tax hikes on just about every American. Consider Democrats' Medicare for All proposal, which would strip Americans of their private health insurance. The pricetag for this program is estimated at $32 trillion over 10 years. To put that number in perspective, the entire Federal budget for 2019 is less than $5 trillion. Democrats are talking about increasing Federal spending by more than 70 percent. One Medicare expert estimates that doubling the amount of individual and corporate income tax collected in this country would not be enough to cover the cost of Medicare for All. I don't know about my Democratic colleagues, but I don't know too many working families who would be able to afford to have their tax bill double. While $32 trillion is an insane pricetag, it is dwarfed by the pricetag for Democrat's comprehensive, socialist fantasy, the Green New Deal. An initial estimate suggests that the Green New Deal would cost $93 trillion over 10 years--$93 trillion. That is more money than the 2017 gross domestic product for the entire world. It is more money than the U.S. government has spent in its entire history. Democrats like to talk about taxing the rich to pay for various initiatives, but the fact is, there aren't enough rich people in America to even come close to paying for the Green New Deal, even if you taxed every one of these people at a rate of 100 percent. Democrats' socialist fantasies would be paid for on the backs of working families. Families would face huge tax hikes that would permanently lower their standard of living, but that is not all. Families would also see a steep decline in the jobs and opportunities available to them. Tax reform has enabled and encouraged businesses to invest in and grow, which is resulting in better wages and benefits and increased opportunities for American workers. None of the growth we are seeing from businesses would last under the tax hikes businesses would face to pay for Democrats' socialist fantasies. Instead of thinking about expanding, companies would be thinking about how they could shrink their workforces or move jobs and investments overseas. Instead of raising wages or improving benefits, companies would be avoiding wage hikes and looking to trim their benefit packages. Under Democrats' socialist fantasies, American families would face a double economic blow: huge tax hikes, fewer jobs, lower wages, and reduced economic opportunity. There is no one in Congress who doesn't want to make life better for American families. Socialism and the massive tax hikes it would bring is not the answer. Socialism would reduce opportunities for Americans, not expand them; it would decrease Americans' standard of living, not improve it; and it would rob Americans of their choices and many of their freedoms. Republicans will continue to fight to expand economic opportunity for American families, and we will do everything we can to ensure that hard-working Americans never have to live under the miserable reality of Democrats' socialist fantasies. I yield the floor. Recognition of the Minority Leader.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Yesterday afternoon, Senate Democrats voted against a rules change that would have reduced needless delay in the Senate and ensure that future Presidents of both parties could staff their administrations in a timely fashion. Democrats chose partisanship over principle and political advantage over the well-being of the Senate. How do I know that this was a partisan decision on Democrats' part and not a principled one? Because 34 currently serving Members of the Democratic caucus supported a very similar rules change measure when President Obama was in office. Yet not one Member--not one Member of the Democratic caucus--voted in favor of the rules change yesterday. Worse, privately, many Democrats had indicated a willingness to support the rules change but only if the effective date were pushed to 2021, when Democrats hope they will have a Democrat in the White House. Apparently, it is reasonable for Democratic administrations to be staffed up in a timely fashion, but Republican administrations should have to suffer endless partisan delays. That is a pretty offensive position. It is disrespectful to the American people, who deserve a fully staffed administration, even when their choice of President isn't the Democrats' choice. It is disrespectful of our system of government. Democrats apparently think the system should be rigged in favor of their party, no matter what election results say. Don't like the fact that a Republican President got to choose Supreme Court Justices? Pack the courts. Don't like the fact that your candidate didn't win the election? Change our electoral system. In a democracy, you win some elections and you lose some elections. Sometimes you like the individual in the White House, and sometimes you don't. Sometimes you succeed in passing your legislation, and sometimes you just don't have the votes. That is the nature of life in a democracy. No one likes being in the minority. It is not fun to lose votes or elections, but that is the price of freedom. That is the price of democracy. The other option is for one party to try to rig the system in its favor so that everything goes its way no matter what election results say. There is a name for that. It is called tyranny. Back in 2013, a majority of Republicans, including the Republican leader and me, supported a rules change to streamline the process of approving lower level administration nominees, such as district court judges and assistant secretaries. We voted for this rules change even though we knew it would benefit only President Obama since it would expire at the end of the 113th Congress, but we signed on because we supported the principle behind the change. We believed that Presidents should be able to staff their administrations in a timely fashion, yes, even if they weren't Presidents from our party. We believed that whether the President was a Republican or Democrat, the American people deserved a fully functioning executive branch. So we worked with Democrats to streamline consideration of lower level administration nominees. I am deeply disappointed that Democrats chose to betray their principles yesterday for short-term partisan gain, and I hope the Democrats here in the Senate will think better of their vote and work with Republicans to speed up consideration of lower level nominees before Democrats' historic level of obstruction becomes a permanent standard here in the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.