Pat Toomey

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I wish to honor the life of Vietnam veteran TJ McGarvey of Upper St. Clair, PA. Mr. McGarvey passed away at age 74 on November 13, 2017. He is survived by his loving family and the countless friends and neighbors whose lives he touched during a lifetime of service and commitment to his country and community. As a member of ``The Walking Dead,'' 1st battalion, 9th Marines, Cpl TJ McGarvey served in Vietnam from March 1967 to April 1968. Only a month after deploying to Vietnam, Corporal McGarvey was wounded. However, he refused to accept the Purple Heart medal he earned because he did not want to upset his mother with the news. For many, having served their country in war fulfilled a selfless act of duty--not so for Corporal McGarvey. His service to his country and fellow vets would remain a constant for his entire life. TJ was cofounder of the Vietnam Veterans Leadership Program, a member of the Friends of Danang, and a fierce advocate for soldiers exposed to Agent Orange, and their families. Just days before his death, his hometown of Upper St. Clair held a Veterans Day ceremony at the town's Veterans Monument Park. Much of the ceremony would honor TJ, whom a fellow veteran called ``the ultimate Marine.'' The park was the brainchild of TJ, who served as its president and key fundraiser. It honors every branch of the military and serves as both a monument to veterans and an educational instrument for visitors and local students. TJ was known as a man of deep faith, committed to his family, and a leader in his community. As a longtime football coach at St. Louise de Marillac, generations of students looked to TJ as a mentor. Ultimately, TJ's legacy will be forever linked to his efforts to ensure that veterans of the U.S. military will never be forgotten. In the 1980s, TJ tirelessly fought to erect a Vietnam veterans monument in Pittsburgh. The monument was dedicated on Veterans Day 1987. The beautiful dedication to the soldiers who fought, died, and went missing in America's war with Vietnam lies peacefully along the banks of the Allegheny River on Pittsburgh's north side. A fitting tribute to the heroes of southwestern Pennsylvania ploughed by a man who lived a life quiet and humble, yet loud enough to help spark a change in the hearts of many. Here, at the confluence of three rivers which defines a community, TJ's poem defines the ethos of the monument--a tribute, but more so a fulfillment of a commitment to ensure our soldiers will never again be denied these two words: ``Welcome Home.'' It is with these words, etched in brass for all to see, that TJ adopted the voice of a remorseful community to right a wrong and fittingly honor a generation of heroes: Welcome home to proud men and women We begin now to fulfill promises To remember the past To look to the future We begin now to complete the final process Not to make political statements Not to offer explanations Not to debate realities Monuments are erected so that the future might remember the past Warriors die and live and die Let the Historians answer the political questions Those who served--served Those who gave all--live in our hearts Those who are left--continue to give As long as we remember-- There is still some love left. TJ McGarvey's lasting legacy will not die, fade away, or be forgotten. As a small token of a grateful nation, I ask that the U.S. Senate stand with me to salute Cpl TJ McGarvey for a life dedicated to God, family, and his brothers in arms, reflecting great credit upon himself and the U.S. Marines.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, after which the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. TOOMEY

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

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I want to echo the message of the Senator from Georgia. This is a terrific opportunity. This is a very big day. It is a big step forward on our path to restoring the economic growth that we have been waiting for all this time. I am very excited about this step forward and the remainder of the process to get this done, to get this bill signed into law. Why do we need this? We have just lived through the weakest recovery in American history--feeble growth, stagnant wages, and a widening gap between the wealthy and the poor. That is what has been happening for years. Some people say: Well, that is just the way it is. You just need to get used to it. That is the new normal. That is what America is about now. That is complete nonsense. There is nothing inevitable about the American economy being weak and denying opportunity for the people we represent. It is a direct result of bad policy, failed policy that prevented us from having the recovery we would normally have after a recession. What was that policy? Well, we saw it. It is very clear. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact that productivity growth in America collapsed. It is a matter of fact that investment in the kinds of new plants and equipment that allow for productivity to grow collapsed. It is a fact that new business startups just dried up. People weren't able and willing to do it. There is no mystery about why our economy was so weak for so many years. We had imposed conditions that made it impossible to have the kind of growth that is normal. Meanwhile, what was happening in the rest of the world? The rest of the world was systematically making their tax codes more competitive. The countries that we compete with around the world, in Europe and Asia, were lowering the rates they apply to business income, they were simplifying their codes, and they were moving to international systems that made it more conducive for them to generate investment into their countries, while we did nothing except let our Tax Code ossify. That is what has been happening these last many years. What I am excited about is that this bill fixes exactly what is broken. This bill goes to exactly where the problem is and begins to turn this around. How do we do that? One of the things we do--a hallmark of this bill--is we are going to lower the cost of investing in the new plants and equipment that will allow American workers to become more productive. More productive workers get paid more in wages; that is just a fact. That is what is going to happen as a result of this bill. Another thing we do in this bill is we get away from this terrible policy we have that is resulting in foreign companies buying up American companies. The way we treat income earned overseas is a disaster, and we are the only country in the world that does it. I think you could make a case that today the United States has what might very well be the least attractive tax regime in the modern world, in the industrialized world. What is really exciting about this is that we are going to move from this system to what just might be the best tax system in the industrialized world. Think about the result that is going to have. I think the result is going to be breathtaking--new investment, new businesses being launched, existing businesses growing. Take foreign direct investment alone. If you think about it, we have a global economy. Capital can move around the world with literally the click of a mouse, and people make investment decisions based on the climate of the place in which they are thinking about investing. When we have the worst tax regime in the world, who really wants to invest here? When we have the best, how are we not going to attract investment from all around the world, including very much in the United States? So the changes we are making are exactly the right changes for this moment. That is true in another respect, and that is, if you think about where we are in this cycle, it has taken way too long to get here, but the unemployment rate is quite low now. We are getting close to full employment. So what happens when we create the incentives for businesses to grow, to invest, for new businesses to launch, for people to invest in America--what happens when that occurs in an environment where the unemployment rate is very low? It sets up a bidding war for workers. There is no other choice. As they grow, these businesses need new employees to get the job done. They have to pay ever more because they are competing with another business down the road that also wants to grow and also wants to invest in new plants and equipment. What we are going to do is create a bidding war for workers. That means wages are going up. When wages go up, families have more take- home pay. When they have more take-home pay, they have a higher standard of living. This is exactly how people have a chance to live the American dream, when the economy is thriving and growing at the rate that America used to take for granted. I am here to say that those days are coming back. We have some work to do. We are not done yet by any means, but I am confident we are going to get this done and, when we do, our constituents are going to live a better life as a result. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I rise to speak about the nomination of Professor Stephanos Bibas, on whom we have just invoked cloture, but before I do that, I want to take a quick moment to observe that we had a big development today--a big development in that the House of Representatives, the majority Ways and Means Committee members, led by Kevin Brady and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, have unveiled a tax reform plan that is a very exciting step forward in our ambition to bring tax relief and is a direct pay raise to hard-working Americans whom we represent, creating an environment where we could have much stronger economic growth and much more opportunity and rising wages for the American people. So I congratulate Chairman Brady and all the members of the Ways and Means Committee. I know this process has a long way to go, but they are off to a great start with a very solid bill. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on the Finance Committee as we finalize our version of the pro-middle-class, pro-growth tax reform, and I am excited to see that step forward. Madam President, let me get back to the issue of the candidacy of Professor Stephanos Bibas and say how enthusiastically I support his candidacy to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. I thank the President for nominating Professor Bibas, I thank Chairman Grassley for moving Professor Bibas through the nomination process of his committee, and I thank Leader McConnell for bringing Professor Bibas's nomination to the floor. I also thank my colleagues who just voted to invoke cloture so that later today we can vote to confirm this terrifically well-qualified man to a really important court. Let me touch on some of his qualities. Professor Bibas has a tremendous wealth of experience in the law as a legal scholar and a practicing attorney, so much so that the American Bar Association voted to give him a unanimous rating of ``well-qualified,'' and let me tell you why. No. 1, he starts with outstanding academic credentials. Professor Bibas graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Columbia University, and he did so at the age of 19. After Columbia, he studied at Oxford University in England and earned his law degree from Yale University. He has clerked at the highest levels of our Federal court system. He clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and Judge Patrick Higginbotham on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The fact is, Professor Bibas is an accomplished legal scholar. For 16 years, he has served as law professor at two outstanding universities-- the University of Iowa College of Law and the University of Pennsylvania School of Law. Professor Bibas has been a prolific author whose academic writings are frequently cited by the U.S. Supreme Court, courts of appeals, and other law professors. He has written two books and more than 60 articles, many of which have focused on criminal law and procedures. In fact, in his writings, he has expressed views regarding criminal justice reform that I suspect many of my Democratic colleagues would share. For instance, Professor Bibas has criticized what he sees as the overuse of plea bargains in our courts as being unfair to criminal defendants who then never get their day in court. So there is no question that Professor Bibas has very extensive academic credentials, but he is also an experienced attorney. He has served on both sides of our criminal justice system. He has been a prosecutor, and he has been a defense attorney. He has a balanced perspective from both sides of this part of our judicial system. He served as a Federal prosecutor in New York City, where he prosecuted over 100 criminal cases. Currently, he is the director of the Supreme Court Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania. Professor Bibas also argued six cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. He won a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision for a criminal defendant in the Padilla v. Kentucky case, a case that held criminal defense attorneys must advise their noncitizen clients about the deportation risk associated with a guilty plea. That was a Professor Bibas case. He has represented dozens of other clients before the Supreme Court, and most of those cases were pro bono clients--clients he did not charge any fees because they couldn't afford experienced counsel. He voluntarily provided that service for them. Over the course of the work he has done, as a result of the work he has done for the Supreme Court, he has been praised by both Justices Kagan and Ginsberg. Justice Ginsberg praised him as ``among the very best of lawyers presenting cases to the Supreme Court.'' I hope all of my colleagues will support Professor Bibas's nomination. He has outstanding credentials, he has a wealth of experience, and I hope everyone will see that in his background. I must state I am disappointed that Senator Durbin, our colleague from Illinois, has stated that he opposes Professor Bibas's nomination. Senator Durbin has stated that his opposition is because of an unpublished academic paper that Professor Bibas drafted in 2009. In that paper, he proposed the consideration of the use of corporal punishment as an alternative to imprisonment for certain criminal offenses, but Professor Bibas has stated unequivocally that he decided not to publish the paper because he realized that idea was wrong, was deeply offensive, and he does not support corporal punishment for criminals. Professor Bibas also testified at his confirmation hearing that he fully understands and respects the difference between the role of a professor who considers theoretical questions and writes about them, on the one hand, versus, on the other hand, a judge who is deciding cases that impact the lives of real people. One of the most important reasons I am an enthusiastic supporter of Professor Bibas is his clear understanding of the role of a judge in the American constitutional system. From my review of his record and from my conversation with him, it is clear he understands the proper role of a judge is to apply the law, including the Constitution, as written and not to make policy himself and that his obligation is to treat everyone absolutely equally, regardless of race, sex, wealth, political affiliation, political connections, or anything else. Unfortunately, many liberals and progressives have a very different view of a judge. Many of my colleagues and others believe the Constitution is a living document, by which they mean that it really means whatever a judge decides it means. Under this view, changes to the law and Constitution can be made by unelected, unaccountable judges who then substitute their policy preference for the preference of the American people as reflected in their elected representatives. Some who hold this view even think judges should take into account such factors as a person's race, sex, wealth, or political affiliation in deciding cases. In my view, that is a deeply flawed view of the law and is fundamentally inconsistent with the principles of the separation of powers that is essential to our democracy, the sovereignty of the American people, and the fair and equal application of the law to all people. Contrary to this view, Professor Bibas understands the proper role of a judge is to apply the law as written and to treat everyone who comes before him equally, not to impose his policy preferences or impose the law differently for different people. Finally, let me say a word about Professor Bibas's temperament and suitability for the bench. I think it is very clear that not only does he understand the role a judge is supposed to play, but he is a man of character and of a temperament that makes him very fit to be a judge. I will give you an example. In one letter of support for his nomination, a bipartisan group of 121 law professors from across the ideological spectrum stated that ``his fair-mindedness, conscientiousness, and personal integrity are beyond question.'' In another quote, ``We have no doubt that his judicial temperament will reflect these qualities and that he will faithfully discharge his duty to apply the law fairly and evenhandedly in all matters before him.'' I am very pleased and proud to support Professor Bibas's nomination to the Third Circuit. I am completely confident he has the intellect, experience, temperament, and respect for the limited role of a judge in our system, those attributes that are necessary for him to excel as a Federal appellate judge, and I am pleased to speak on behalf of this highly qualified nominee. I urge all of my colleagues to support his confirmation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, all postcloture time on the Bibas nomination expire at 1:45 p.m. today.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote in the 11:45 a.m. vote series this morning.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, we have an opportunity today to give ourselves the tool to pass a tax reform bill that will absolutely mean tax relief for middle-income and working-class families and will promote the kind of economic growth that we have been waiting for, but to do it, we are going to have to defeat this amendment and pass the underlying budget. What my friend from Oregon is suggesting is that we give a minority in the Senate the opportunity to defeat tax reform by filibuster. That is what would happen if we were to pass this amendment. I have to disagree strongly with the notion that somehow this is not a bipartisan exercise. There is nothing about reconciliation that in any way discourages or prevents full Democratic participation. We are going to have a markup in the Senate Finance Committee, and there will be unlimited amendment opportunities. If we are able to report something out, then there will be unlimited amendment opportunities on the floor. There is nothing that we could do to stop it if we wanted to because those are the rules of reconciliation. Every Democrat in this body will have an unlimited opportunity to weigh in on this, to influence this, and to amend this, and it will be a fully bipartisan exercise. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the GAO opinion letter dated October 19, 2017, related to the Interagency Guidance on Leveraged Lending of March 22, 2013, Federal Register citation 78 FR 17766.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I have 5 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Agriculture The Committee on Agriculture is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 19, 2017, at 2 p.m., in room S-1216, to conduct a hearing the following nominations: Gregory Ibach, of Nebraska, to be Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, and William Northey, of Iowa, to be Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, both of the Department of Agriculture. Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 19, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in open and closed session to receive testimony on the roles and responsibilities for defending the nation from cyberattack. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 19, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining How Healthy Choices Can Improve Health Outcomes and Reduce Costs.'' Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 19, 2017, at 10:30 a.m. to hold a hearing entitled ``Food Aid.'' Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 19, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Stephanos Bibas, of Pennsylvania, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, Allison H. Eid, of Colorado, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, Annemarie Carney Axon, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, Michael Lawrence Brown, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, Thomas Alvin Farr, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, William M. Ray II, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, Liles Clifton Burke, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, Walter David Counts III, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, Michael Joseph Juneau, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, Karen Gren Scholer, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, Tilman Eugene Self III, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia, and John C. Demers, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Attorney General, Scott C. Blader, to be United States Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin, Mark A. Klaassen, to be United States Attorney for the District of Wyoming, William C. Lamar, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of Mississippi, John R. Lausch, Jr., to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and J. Douglas Overbey, to be United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, all of the Department of Justice.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I want to say some words about our Budget resolution, which I hope we will be passing this week, and how important it is that we do, in fact, pass this. I want to clarify a few issues because the tax reform legislation continues to be a work in progress, and many elements have been mischaracterized, while others have been made up out of the clear blue sky. Let me start with the budget resolution and start by thanking Chairman Enzi for the very hard work he has done and the very great work he has done in bringing together the Republican conference around a budget resolution that I think is very likely to pass. Let's be candid about what this is about. The budget resolution is about giving us the tools to pass tax reform later this year. That is what this budget resolution is about. It is a misnomer, really, when you think about it. The most important substantive item in the budget resolution, by far, is the procedural tools it will give us to pass tax reform with a simple majority vote in the Senate, so that a minority of the body is not able to block tax reform by filibuster. That is what this is about. That is what we are endeavoring to accomplish here. Why is it important? The main reason it is so important is because for so long we--our entire country--have been laboring with such feeble economic growth. For the last 60 years, prior to the Obama administration, annual economic growth in America was 3.4 percent. During the entire 8-year administration of President Obama, we never once had a single year where we reached even 3 percent. The Congressional Budget Office believes that we are now locked into the indefinite future of sub-2 percent economic growth, and that is what we just have to accept. We have to settle for the fact that we are no longer a booming economy. We are not capable of being a booming economy. There are a lot of problems with this. I think it is completely unacceptable to believe that, somehow, because a calendar year turned on a page or because Obama was elected President some years ago, it is not possible for America to have the robust economic growth that used to be ordinary. It is not true that we are somehow consigned to feeble growth, and it matters if our economy is growing at 2 percent. It takes 36 years to double the standard of living for the average family. If we just managed to get the growth to 3 percent, and that is less than the historical average, then we can double our standard of living in just over 20 years. It is a big difference in the standard of living of the people who I represent. That is what this is about. If we get this budget resolution passed this week, the tax reform that many of us are working very hard on has two big goals, certainly for me. I have had many discussions with my colleagues on the Finance Committee and outside the Finance Committee, and I think these goals are widely shared. The first is that it absolutely has to provide tax relief for hard- working Americans--middle income, lower income, people of modest means, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck. There has to be a direct tax benefit for those Pennsylvanians, those Arkansans, and those people all across America. How are we going to do that? It is very clear. There is no question. There will be a reduction in the tax rates that are applied to income for hard-working Americans. There is going to be an increase in the standard deduction that they can take, which means a bigger chunk of their income that doesn't get taxed at all. That is absolutely going to be a feature of this tax reform. We are going to increase the child tax credit, so that people who have the cost of raising a family with kids are going to get a credit toward that cost. The combined effect of these things are absolutely going to lower the tax rates for hard-working Americans, for lower income and middle- income families. If it didn't accomplish that, it wouldn't even get out of the Finance Committee, much less pass a vote on this floor. That is No. 1. There are still dials to be turned and rates to be set--exactly where the various brackets begin and end. These details are still a work in progress, but that goal is going to be achieved. That is item No. 1. But the other item is really important too, and that is the process by which all of these very same families get an indirect pay raise. They get a pay raise. It will happen over time, and it will happen in different ways. That happens by creating incentives to maximize economic growth and to get away from this sub-2 percent, barely growing economy we have been tolerating and to get back to something closer to what is normal for America--an economy that is growing at least 3 percent. What happens if we have stronger economic growth? I mentioned before that we increase the standard of living much more quickly. People get to see their kids have a better life and a better standard of living than they had. They can see that trend is going to continue. It happens because new businesses start to get launched again. It happens because existing businesses expand. Both new businesses and expanding businesses hire more workers. When you hire more workers, especially at a time when most economists think we are at something close to what they consider full employment, it puts direct, immediate, and upward pressure on wages, which is what we have been waiting for. So not only will a working family discover they owe less money to Uncle Sam, but they are very likely to quickly be in a position where they are getting a pay raise because their employer has to pay them more to keep them because we are going to create more demand for workers. How do we do that? One of the ways we are going to do that, I hope--and this is, again, a work in progress; it is underway--is that we ought to make our business tax regime, our big business Tax Code competitive. Anyone who looks at this honestly knows that our Tax Code is not competitive today. American workers and businesses lose out to competition from overseas because other countries have much more competitive tax codes. It is entirely possible, and I think you could make the case, that the American Tax Code is the worst in the world. It is that bad, and when it is that bad, that means our workers and our businesses are much less able to compete. So we are going to try to fix that. That means lowering the rate on income tax for our businesses to something that is comparable to what the rest of the world pays, rather than the extremely high outlier rate that we have today. It also means that we ought to allow our businesses to expense capital when they put it to work. What does that mean? That means that when a company says we are going to buy a new piece of equipment, a new piece of machinery, a new vehicle, or a new backhoe--whatever it might be--you allow the company to recognize that expense when the expense occurs for tax purposes. That might just seems like common sense. Why wouldn't you do that? We don't do that today. For a large category of new equipment that businesses go out and purchase, even though they have to buy it in the year in which they put it into service and they have to come up with the cash, they don't get to reduce their income accordingly, except over many years. What that means is that it makes it effectively more expensive to buy that equipment. They have to pay tax on money they don't have. That means they buy less equipment. What difference does this make? It makes a lot of difference. Again, there is a direct effect and an indirect effect. A direct effect is that by allowing businesses to fully expense the capital they put to work, we are going to encourage them to buy more items. That means more work, more production for the kind of machinery and equipment that these businesses are likely to buy. But it gets better than that because when businesses deploy that capital--when they buy a new piece of equipment, a new piece of machinery, when they upgrade their software, or whatever they are doing with this capital expenditure-- they are making their workforce more productive. They are making their employees able to produce more in a given hour in a given day, and when workers are more productive, that is when a business can afford to pay them more, and in fact, has to pay them more. That is where pay raises come from. They come from productivity growth. Productivity growth comes when capital gets put to work. We are going to encourage more of that, and that is going to result in higher wages and higher income for the people we all represent. The third point I want to make about this tax reform is that it is very important that we fix a broken part of our code that deals with overseas subsidiaries of American firms and foreign firms that operate in the United States. That part of our Tax Code is a disaster. We have all read about the corporate inversions, for instance, where an American-based company seeks to be acquired by a foreign company for the sole purpose of lowering its tax burden. That happens. It happens because our Tax Code drives it. We have all heard about the $2 to $3 trillion of profits that American companies have earned in overseas subsidiaries. They will not bring the money home because if they were to do so, they would have to pay another huge tax on top of what they already paid in the jurisdiction of whatever country their subsidiary operates in. Why would we tolerate a system like that? We have an opportunity to fix that. If we fix that, then huge sums of money will come flooding back into the United States. That is going to get invested here. That is going to mean more businesses, new expansion, and more hiring. That is going to be tremendously constructive for our economy, and, going forward, we will eliminate this perverse incentive to have multinational companies headquartered anywhere but in the United States, which is the case today. In short, this is our opportunity to begin to achieve the growth we have been waiting for. Ever since the great recession, we have not had the kind of economic growth that used to be normal for America. A completely archaic, terribly unfair, ridiculously complicated Tax Code is part of the reason why. You might ask: How did we used to have such strong growth with this Tax Code? The fact is that most of the rest of the world has been about the business of improving their tax code while we have not. This is our moment and our opportunity to begin to catch up. We can do it in a big way, as long as we pass this budget and give ourselves the tools to do so. This budget resolution creates the opportunity to do tax reform. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have criticized the fact that we are setting up a process and using the budget resolution so that the subsequent tax reform can be passed with a simple majority vote in the Senate. They have criticized that. They suggested, in varying degrees, that somehow that leaves them out of the process. Let me be very clear. That is categorically untrue. As to the tax reform bill, we are working on the ideas for this now, and when we actually get to drafting the specifics, it is going to happen in the Finance Committee in the Senate. It is going to happen in the Ways and Means Committee in the House. It is going to be public. The documents are going to be disclosed before the markups begin, and it is going to be open to amendments. My Democratic colleagues on the Finance Committee are going to be able to offer whatever amendments they like. They can work with us on shaping this, and I hope they will join us in voting for it. It is much better if we could end up passing this with a big bipartisan vote. A tax bill that absolutely does lower the direct tax burden on lower income and middle-income families and encourages more economic growth ought to be something that could be broadly supported. They will have every opportunity to weigh in. They will have every opportunity to amend it. There is nothing about this procedure that in any way excludes Democratic participation. What it does do, though, is that it says that we will not be held hostage by a minority that wishes to thwart this. If we can persuade at least 50 Senators and a Vice President who is so inclined in the Chair, we will have the ability to pass tax reform. I think it would be malpractice for us not to create the opportunity to do tax reform with a simple majority since we have that vehicle available to us. I believe we are going to pass it today. Another point I would like to address is the discussion that somehow we are going to blow a hole in the deficit with this. It couldn't be further from the truth, in my view. The budget resolution allows the Finance Committee to report back a tax reform package that will, by a very particular and very precisely defined process, be deemed to forego $1.5 trillion in Federal revenue over the next 10 years. But when you start to unpack that, you realize that, in all likelihood, if we do this tax reform right, we are going to reduce the size of the deficit over this 10-year period. We are not going to increase it. Why do I say that? First of all, the $1.5 trillion in foregone revenue contemplated by the budget resolution is very misleading because it pretends that the current policy we have of a number of temporary tax relief measures is going to go away. It pretends we are not going to continue those or extend them. In all likelihood, Congress routinely extends them. They will probably be extended. That is worth about $500 billion of that $1.5 trillion. What we are really talking about is $1 trillion of less revenue over the next 10 years. You have to keep in mind, that is on a base of about $43 trillion. It is something on the order of recalling 2.5 percent of projected Federal revenue. I think the question to ask is, How much extra economic growth will it take to fully offset $1 trillion worth of forgone revenue? Well, that math is pretty easy because the joint tax plan and the Congressional Budget Office have quantified this many times. The answer is something like approximately four-tenths of 1 percent. Four-tenths of 1 percent of extra economic growth, in response to the tremendously pro-growth incentives that we want to put into this Tax Code, will fully offset that. The Congressional Budget Office is projecting, on average, for the next 10 years, our economy is going to continue at this feeble 1.9 percent--1.9 percent is their number. If getting these reforms right, if lowering the tax burden on working families, if allowing business to expand, making our international and business Tax Codes competitive, if we do that right, I have absolutely no doubt we can generate much more than an additional four-tenths of 1 percent of growth. When we get the specifics, we will have an opportunity and we will have many analyses that we will be able to look at to address this question of just how much economic growth we will have. In my view, it is extremely likely that we will significantly surpass this very modest hurdle of four-tenths of 1 percent of growth. Finally, the minority leader made reference to this being a big tax cut for the wealthy. I will remind my colleagues, we can have differences of opinions. We can have a debate here, and we will, but let's remember, this tax reform bill is not written yet. The two big goals I mentioned I think are universally shared on our side of the aisle, tax relief for middle-income working families and pro-growth policies. We haven't written the details yet. We haven't established exactly what the brackets will be, exactly what the rates will be, where they will kick in, how the passthrough rates apply. There are a lot of important details that are going to be worked out in committee, which is exactly what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle insisted we should be doing, and that is what we should be doing. It also means, since that product is not yet finished, it is not possible for anyone to pull out a number and say X percent of this bill is going to go to this category of people. That is not knowable because the bill is not finished yet. I am thrilled about this opportunity that we are going to create this week to pass the tax reform later this year that will allow us to achieve the growth we have been waiting for, and that means allowing my constituents, Pennsylvanians, and people all across America to achieve the standard of living they deserve, that they are working hard to achieve, and that they will be able to enjoy. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, today I recognize the 90th anniversary of PJM Interconnection, which is the Nation's largest competitive wholesale electricity market. Headquartered in Valley Forge, PA, PJM performs the critical function of supplying electricity to more than 65 million customers in 13 Midwestern, Mid-Atlantic, and Southern States and the District of Columbia. PJM began in 1927 when three electric utilities joined together to connect their systems and form Pennsylvania-New Jersey Interconnection, the world's first continuing power pool. Additional utilities joined the coalition over the following decades, and in 1956, it became known as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland--PJM--Interconnection, the name used today. Around the same time, PJM expanded its use of new technology by installing its first online computer to control electric generation and later to monitor grid operations in real time, which led to improved reliability and better customer service. PJM is also celebrating its 20th anniversary as an independent system operator, ISO. In 1997, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, approved PJM as the Nation's first fully functioning ISO, which operates but does not own electric transmission systems. Five years later, PJM became the first regional transmission organization in the country when FERC encouraged the formation of these entities to increase access to competitive wholesale energy markets. Over the past two decades, PJM has continued its focus on innovation and customer service by expanding utility membership, developing generating capacity, and diversifying its energy portfolio to include coal, natural gas, and nuclear. In addition, PJM is recognized by its peers as a leader in the competitive wholesale electricity sector. The firm continues to focus on improving energy storage, grid technology, and demand response. PJM first provided wholesale electricity in 1927, and I am confident that PJM will continue its commitment to affordability, reliability, and customer service for the foreseeable future.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the healthcare topic for 15 minutes.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I am going to speak mostly about some Medicaid reforms that were proposed in the BCRA, but in the course of the discussion, I am going to touch on some of the issues that our colleague who just finished raised. As we know, the BCRA bill is not going to be the vehicle we will take to a conference committee with the House, but I hope we will get to a conference committee with the House, and I hope the result of that, among other things, is that we will address the need to make important reforms to Medicaid because they are long overdue. I will start with a chart which illustrates our Federal deficits and what exactly is driving our Federal deficits. The fact is--I think we all know here--we have two big categories of Federal spending. One is the discretionary spending which Congress approves at Congress's discretion every year. The other category is the programs on autopilot--programs where spending is driven by a person's eligibility for the program without Congress acting in any way. That latter category we call mandatory spending. In 1980, that was only 50 percent of the Federal budget. By 1995, it was 64 percent. Last year, it was 70 percent of our entire budget, and we are on a path to have these mandatory spending--the blue line. We can see the growth in mandatory spending. We can see the relative lack of growth in the other categories of spending, be it defense or nondefense discretionary spending. The budgetary problem we have is mandatory spending. This is not breaking news. This is nothing that is controversial. Anybody who has taken an honest look at the numbers can come to no other conclusion. The discretionary portion of the budget, which used to be the lion's share of the budget, has been relatively flat. Actually, it has even declined in recent years. The mandatory spending has been going through the roof. Of course, there are multiple problems with this, not the least of which is--at this kind of growth in mandatory spending--the first thing it does is it squeezes out all other categories of spending. We are already living through that, as the discretionary spending--including on our Nation's defense--has been declining because you can't do so much of both, but in time you could zero out all the discretionary spending, and there still will not be enough for all the mandatory spending which is coming our way if we stay on the path we are on. Where is all this mandatory spending coming from? The next chart shows that pretty clearly. The bulk of mandatory spending, especially in recent years, is from Medicaid. The reason I say that is, Social Security is a big program, but Social Security has a dedicated revenue stream. The payroll tax historically used to cover all of it. For a while there, it covered more than the ongoing payments for Social Security. While that fluctuated when we suspended the payroll tax, by and large, the payroll tax pays most of the Social Security costs that we have day-to-day. Medicare also has a revenue stream that is dedicated from payroll taxes, but it doesn't cover nearly as large a percentage of the Medicare costs as Social Security so we see the green line generally is higher than the blue line. The line which is higher than all by far is the Medicaid line because there is no dedicated revenue stream to Medicaid, and the net expense, therefore, is by far the biggest of all our entitlement programs. Medicaid has been growing at a really shocking rate for years. In 1980, Medicaid spending was only 2.4 percent of our budget, a half a percent of our economy; by 1995, it was almost 6 percent of our budget; and today it is 10 percent of our whole budget, 17 percent of all healthcare spending. So this is happening because Medicaid is growing much faster than our economy is growing. The fact is, no Federal program can grow faster than the economy indefinitely because the economy has to fund the entire Federal Government. Hopefully, funding the government is only a portion of what our economy is doing. The main purpose of our economy is to provide a livelihood for the people who create it, but Medicaid, as we can see, is growing at a staggering rate compared to our economy as measured by GDP. This picture right here summarizes, really, for me the very definition of an unsustainable Federal program because as it continues to grow at a rate that is much greater than our economy, it necessarily is consuming an ever greater percentage, an ever greater portion of our economy and our Federal budget. Nothing can grow faster than our economy indefinitely. It is just arithmetic. Eventually, it would become bigger than the economy, which is obviously an impossibility, and long before that happened, it would cause a fiscal crisis. This is the very essence of what is unsustainable. You don't have to take my word for it, and I am certainly not the first person to observe this. We could take the words of Democratic President Bill Clinton, who told us this very thing. Back in 1995, President William Jefferson Clinton said: We all now, looking ahead, know that our number one entitlement problem is Medicare and Medicaid. They are growing much more rapidly than the rate of inflation plus population. Now, President Bill Clinton wasn't making this point because he is some kind of ideologue who wants to get rid of Medicaid. I don't think he has ever been accused of that. It is not because he has some passionate ideological commitment to reducing the size of government. I don't think he has ever been accused of that. I think Bill Clinton was making this point because he knew this program was unsustainable, and he wanted to reform it so it would be sustainable, so our Federal budget would be sustainable, so Medicaid would be there for the next generation. I think that was Bill Clinton's motivation at the time. So what was his solution? What was it that Bill Clinton thought we ought to do about this program that was unsustainable? President Bill Clinton suggested the Federal Government put caps on the amount of money it would contribute to the States based on the number of individuals enrolled. In other words, it was a per beneficiary limit on the Federal contribution. That was what Bill Clinton proposed in 1995. He wanted to maintain the eligibility of individuals to participate in the program, but he wanted to put limits on what the Federal Government's share would be. He wanted to have it grow at about the rate the economy would grow so you wouldn't continue to have this wildly accelerating line relative to this modest growth line but that the two lines would converge, because then, as Bill Clinton knew, the program would be sustainable over time. We would be able to afford it. One might wonder, what did Congress think of this idea at the time. This is 1995. Bill Clinton came along and said: Let's establish per beneficiary caps on Medicaid expenditures by the Federal Government, and let's limit the growth of those caps to about the growth of the economy. That was Bill Clinton's idea. Helpfully, the Democrats, who controlled the Senate, decided to weigh in on the matter, and on December 13, 1995, Senator Patty Murray--who serves with us today--submitted a letter to the Congressional Record. I am going to read a very brief comment she made when she submitted this for the Record. The senior Senator from Washington, Patty Murray, said: Mr. President, I hold in my hand today a letter to President Clinton that is signed by all 46 members of the Democratic Caucus. This letter urges him to hold firm to our commitment to basic health care for children, pregnant women, the elderly, and the disabled in this country. This letter supports a per capita cap approach to finding savings in the Medicaid program. It was signed by every single Democratic Senator. They expressed their strong support for the Medicaid per capita cap structure. I want to be very specific about this because as they developed the particulars, they decided the cap should not grow at an index that was tied to healthcare spending. They wanted it to be tied to an index which would grow at the rate of the economy overall, and they proposed it would go into effect the very next year. They didn't want to wait. They didn't want to have a transition. They didn't want it to be gradual. They wanted it to go into effect the next year. They proposed implementing the changes for the very next fiscal year. So you can imagine that some of us are a little bit surprised by the shrill, over-the-top attacks we have been hearing from the other side. We Republicans have been accused of launching a war on Medicaid. We have been accused of draconian cuts. We have been accused of wanting to decimate healthcare for the most vulnerable. We could go on. As you and I both know, all across this country, on this floor, in every form imaginable, our Democratic colleagues have attacked Republicans for the proposal in the BCRA bill we have been considering. What is really so outrageous about this is, we proposed the Democratic solution. What we proposed was Bill Clinton's idea, as ratified by every single Democrat serving in the Senate at the time, including several who are still with us today. We proposed that we take Medicaid and restructure it the way the Federal Government reimburses States for their expenses so that we would put caps on the amount the Federal Government would contribute per beneficiary. We would allow the caps to grow, but just as President Clinton and all the Democrats in the Senate suggested, we would make sure that growth eventually converged to the growth of our economy so we would have a sustainable program. There are two big differences between what the Democrats proposed in the mid-1990s and what many of us have proposed these last few weeks: One, we proposed that the change occur more gradually. We suggested that we would implement these changes, but we do it over time, not suddenly, the way they had proposed it. The other big difference, I would suggest, is they proposed this structural change to Medicaid before ObamaCare came along and made an unsustainable program worse. We are proposing it in the aftermath of that huge problem. I get our Democratic colleagues have done a 180 reversal. I get they no longer acknowledge that this is unsustainable. I get that they don't want to do anything about entitlements. I understand all that. You are entitled to change your opinion, you are entitled to decide you want to ignore this issue, but it is a little bit over the top to attack our motives, our integrity, when we are proposing exactly what they themselves proposed just a few years ago under President Clinton. I wish we could have a substantive discussion about the policy without the character attacks. Let me get into a little bit more about these changes to Medicaid. As the Presiding Officer very well knows, traditionally, Medicaid was available, from the time the program was launched, to four categories of Americans--four categories of people who were of very low income and were deemed to be unable to purchase healthcare for themselves. Those are the elderly poor, disabled, blind and disabled children, and adults with dependents. So the program set up a partnership with the States--a generous partnership. The Federal Government has always paid a majority of the costs, ranging anywhere in some States as high as 75 percent of the costs and no State less than 50 percent--on average, 57 percent. ObamaCare came along and created a new category of eligibility. Under President Obama, for the first time--under ObamaCare--a new category was created; that is, adults, working-aged, able-bodied people with no dependents, would now be eligible for Medicaid if their income was below 138 percent of the poverty line. The Federal Government would pay all of the costs initially, and then after a short period of time, it would go to 90 percent. Then the Federal Government would pay 90 percent in perpetuity. Well, there are a few problems with this design. The most fundamental and obvious is the Federal Government couldn't afford this. We were not on a sustainable path before, and now we have created this whole new liability which can only make it worse and bring a fiscal crisis closer to the present. The second thing is, when States have no skin in the game, we find out they behave as though they have no skin in the game. When States have to contribute only 10 percent of the cost--think about it. Every dollar a State spends in this category gets matched with nine Federal dollars, nine free dollars. That is a huge incentive to spend a lot, and guess what. That is exactly what they have done. Medicaid spending in this category has ended up being over 50 percent more than what was expected. So what did the Senate propose in our legislation? We proposed not that we would disallow this coverage, not that we would eliminate this category of eligibility, not that we would throw a single person off Medicaid--we have said, in fact, we will codify the expansion. We will make it permanent. No one loses eligibility, no one gets thrown off. What we will do is gradually, over 7 years, we will ask States to pay their fair share for this new category--this expansion category, the able-bodied adults with no dependents. We will ask the States to pay the same amount for these folks that they pay for the traditional four categories of eligibility. That is the first category. The second reform we proposed is what I alluded to earlier, the Bill Clinton-Democratic Senate proposal of establishing per beneficiary caps. That was in our legislation. What the underlying Senate bill did was allow the spending to grow very rapidly on those caps. Only in the eighth year did we ask that the growth rate slow down slightly so we would have a reasonable chance so the growth in the program would be about the same as the economy. That is what we proposed. That is what was in the bill. That is what we have been hearing about--all of these draconian cuts. Let's get to the discussion about these cuts. We have another chart that illustrates this because it has been a favorite theme for some of my colleagues on the other side to talk about all of these cuts. If you look at the CBO score--again, this is the Senate BCRA, the legislation on which we didn't get enough votes this week to pass, but I hope we will revisit it--the largest of the so-called cuts in Medicaid spending comes from CBO's assumption that if you repeal the individual mandate--the statute that says you must buy insurance, you must have insurance--millions of people on Medicaid, millions of people who did get free health insurance, will decide: Oh, I don't want free health insurance anymore. If I am not being forced to buy it, I am not going to take free healthcare. Why would I do that? I don't know about you, but that is a little counterintuitive to me. To my friend from Oregon who is attacking the so-called skinny bill, 100 percent of the so-called Medicaid cuts in that bill come from exactly this source. The assumption is that, if people are not forced by the government to have insurance, they will not want Medicaid. You can decide how much credibility you want to put in that assumption. It strikes me as ridiculous, but that is the truth. That is the reality of the so-called CBO cuts in Medicaid. In the BCRA, that was only the lion's share of the so-called cuts. Another category of so-called cuts to Medicaid in the CBO analysis of the BCRA are their assumptions about expansion. They decide that under current law, if nothing else happens, a whole lot of States will choose to become Medicaid expansion States. They haven't made that choice yet. They can't point to which ones. It is a political decision in the various States. They don't know who is going to be leading those States. They have no idea about how that would happen, but yet they predict States that have chosen thus far not to be Medicaid expansion States would adopt the expansion under current law. If we passed the law that was proposed earlier, those States would not make that decision. Furthermore, some States that have expanded will rescind the decision to expand. Any honest person, including the folks at the CBO, have to acknowledge that this is entirely speculative. They can't name a single State that will expand under the current law but hasn't yet. They can't name a single State that would rescind its expansion having already done so. They are just speculating that could happen. That, my friends, is the lion's share of the CBO's headline numbers about all these cuts in Medicaid. Let me go to chart 5. Despite that, even if you accept the CBO's unbelievable assumptions that people only participate in Medicaid if they are forced to and that these mysterious States will expand and others will not--these are the draconian cuts--each and every year, under the BCRA, Federal spending on Medicaid grows. It grows every year--every single year. It is only in Washington that spending can increase every year, and it is a draconian cut. No, the truth of the matter is that what we do under that legislation is that we slow down the rate of growth. We slow the rate at which the program grows to a rate that is sustainable, so that this program is viable, so that we are diminishing the certainty of a fiscal crisis. That is what we do. If somebody has a better idea for how we put Medicaid on a sustainable path, I am all ears. I would love to hear it. In the 1990s, our Democratic colleagues proposed exactly what we are proposing now. That was a very constructive idea. Unfortunately, there wasn't a consensus to do it, and that is a shame. I urge my Democratic colleagues to go back to their notes, to go back to the discussion, to go back to the arguments they were making together with President Bill Clinton on the floor of this Senate and around the country about Medicaid, because we are making those arguments now. You would think we might be able to find some common ground. The fact is that Medicaid is a very, very important program. The most vulnerable Americans depend on Medicaid to a very significant degree. The fact is that, in its current form, it is unsustainable. Our Democratic colleagues in the past used to recognize this. They used to acknowledge this, and they used to want to do something about it. I urge them to return to that attitude so that we can work together and get something done. The sooner we act on this, the sooner we can have gradual, sensible, thoughtful reforms that make the program sustainable and allow our States to plan for these changes and allow for a transition. If we wait too long, the fiscal crisis that will hit us will force sudden and draconian changes. We are not going to vote on this provision today. This was embedded in the BCRA. That is behind us this week, but it is my hope that we will pass a version of ObamaCare repeal that will enable to us to go to conference and that we will be able to begin to repair the enormous damage to the individual markets that ObamaCare has done, that we will be able to stabilize them, that we will be able to move in the direction of consumers actually having control of their own healthcare once again, and that we will put Medicaid on a sustainable path, because the time is overdue. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

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

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to express my considerable disappointment with the U.S.-Mexico sugar agreement that was announced just last week. This deal was concluded recently. The fact is that this is a bad deal for the United States. I am completely mystified as to why our Commerce Department would agree to it. It is a bad deal for U.S. consumers, and we are all consumers. It is a bad deal for American workers. It completely fails to address the high price of sugar that we have in America today. In fact, it makes the problem worse. It increases the price that we all have to pay for sugar. It reduces choices for consumers, and it absolutely threatens jobs in the many food-producing industries that we have across our country. What it does is that it continues the protectionist policies that favor a handful of big sugar producers and refiners. These are large, agribusiness companies, generally, already subsidized by domestic agricultural policies that force American consumers to pay artificially inflated prices for their products. It also limits imports, and the fact is that the agreement should be doing just the opposite. It should be giving us a free market in sugar so that American consumers can shop for the best deal available in the world, and that is exactly what it does not do. Unfortunately, what they did at the Commerce Department is they failed to prioritize the concerns of ordinary American consumers, ordinary American workers. The fact is that the United States is a significant net importer of sugar. We are a huge country, and we don't produce as much sugar as we consume. So we import the difference. Mexico happens to be the No. 1 source of imported sugar. We get about 35 percent of our imported sugar from Mexico. The NAFTA trade agreement provided for free trade in sugar. It took a long time to get there, but it contemplated an arrangement where Mexico could sell to American consumers--like my wife, when she goes shopping at the store, and all of our families--without duties, without tariffs, without taxes, without obstacles. But that didn't work out so well for some of the sugar producers. So they went to court, and they accused Mexico of dumping sugar. In order to avoid tariffs, the Mexican Government agreed to what they call the suspension agreement. It is an agreement that basically sets a minimum price. So that is what we do. That is our sugar policy. The government dictates it, essentially, in conjunction with foreign governments. It is the American Government that has all the leverage here. We set prices. We fix prices. We don't have a free market. We establish, by central government fiat, what the price will be. We also establish import quotas. We decide how much of foreign sugar an American will be permitted to buy, reminiscent of ``Moscow on the Mississippi.'' This is not how you have a free market that allows consumers to have the choices and the benefits from lower competition. I was concerned about where this negotiation was heading. So Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democratic Senator from New Hampshire, and I sent a letter to Commerce Secretary Ross to urge him to consider the impact on consumers--which is all of us, I will reiterate--in negotiating this deal. There was a similar letter from House Members. Unfortunately, it apparently did not persuade our Commerce Department. In fact, this new agreement--as I think I mentioned--leaves us with a policy that is worse than it was before. This new so-called suspension agreement increases the already-inflated price of sugar--2 percent higher for raw sugar and 8 percent higher for refined sugar if it is imported from Mexico. How does it help the 320 million Americans? How does it help ordinary Americans to be forced to pay more for the sugar that we all have to buy? It is a staple in our food. The answer is that it doesn't help. It hurts the single mom who is going to the grocery store to buy cereal for her kids when she has to pay approximately twice the price of the global price for sugar. Where does that money go? It goes straight out of her pocket and straight into the pockets of this handful of wealthy sugar producers in America. So it is absolutely bad policy for American consumers. Make no mistake about it. Higher prices for Mexican sugar mean higher prices for American consumers--all of us. The Coalition for Sugar Reform estimates that the new agreement--just the new agreement--will cost U.S. consumers an additional billion dollars a year. That goes straight to the growers, the producers. As I said, U.S. sugar prices are already almost double the world prices, generally, because of the ridiculous agricultural policy we have with respect to sugar. The American Enterprise Institute reports that they believe that the current policy already costs U.S. consumers $3 billion a year. So you have the $3 billion a year from this flawed policy we used to have. Now we just added another billion dollars a year in costs to our consumers by virtue of this suspension agreement. What the Commerce Department should be doing in these contexts is described as to reduce and eliminate this mandatory price fixing, eliminate these barriers to trade, and put U.S. consumers as the first priority. I will point out that it is not only Americans as consumers who are harmed by this, but it is also Americans as workers. There are industries that use sugar as a component in their food products. My State of Pennsylvania, in particular, has a lot of these companies--200 confectioners. We have the most in any State. Our sugar-using industries employ nearly 40,000 workers across our Commonwealth. We have 600,000 workers across the country in the various food and beverage industries that make products that we all consume that use sugar. Guess what. Higher sugar prices jeopardize those well-paying food manufacturing jobs. About 120,000 such jobs have been lost over the last 2 decades because what happens is that American food producers just can't compete. American food producers are forced to buy artificially expensive sugar. Their foreign competitors don't have to do that. Their foreign competitors can buy sugar on the world market at about half the price. So guess what? An American candy maker or cereal maker or other food maker is at a huge competitive disadvantage. We have been losing them, in part, because we force them to pay these artificially high prices. Our own Commerce Department--the very same Commerce Department that negotiated this deal--did a study. This is their work, not mine. They estimate that when you artificially prop up the price of sugar, you might save some jobs in the sugar-growing industry, but for every job you save there, you lose three jobs in the food processing and manufacturing industry--in the sugar consumption industry. What a terrible trade. What a terrible arrangement. I am very disappointed to learn about this. The Commerce Department clearly failed to negotiate an agreement that would put consumers first and consumers' pocketbooks first. Instead, we have increased prices above the already artificially high levels. We have restrictions on sugar trade, and, apparently, we have decided to pursue protectionist policies that advance the interests of a small handful of wealthy growers at the expense of several hundred million American consumers. This strikes me as crony capitalism, and it is a huge mistake. I hope that this is not a sign of what is to come in trade negotiations. We are told that the administration is going to be reevaluating and renegotiating various agreements, including NAFTA and others. As they are being reconsidered, I hope we will not go down this protectionist road of favoring a handful of the privileged few at the expense of the many, as we apparently did in this agreement. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I want to recognize a constituent of mine, Neil Smit, for his service to our country, volunteer work in the community, and accomplishments in the business world. Earlier this year, Neil stepped down as president and CEO of Comcast Cable after 7 years with the company, but he will continue to work for the Comcast Corporation in his new role as a vice chairman. Many know Neil for his business success and acumen, but his impressive career began as a member of the Armed Forces. Neil served on Active Duty with the Navy SEAL teams for over 5 years and retired from the service as a lieutenant commander. Neil never forgot the actions of his fellow servicemembers, which is why he championed Comcast's pledge to help Active-Duty servicemembers find jobs and make the transition into the civilian workforce. In particular, Neil spearheaded Comcast's commitment to hire 10,000 veterans, Reservists, and their spouses, as well as improving the company's military leave policies. Neil is active in community service, both nationally and in the Philadelphia region. He currently sits on the executive committee of the board of trustees for the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, and he serves on the board of directors of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and C-SPAN, which broadcasts the Senate's proceedings nationwide. As CEO of Comcast Cable, Neil developed and implemented significant changes aiming to improve cable and broadband services across the country. Comcast has a strong and well-known presence in Pennsylvania, both in terms of delivering television programming and Internet service to customers and in employing thousands of hard-working individuals across a variety of careers. Under Neil's leadership, Comcast Cable accelerated its commitment to job creation and innovation, developing new products that changed how customers consume telecommunication services. Prior to his time at Comcast, Neil displayed the same leadership and dedication to teamwork while serving in senior leadership positions at Charter Communications, AOL, Pillsbury, and Nabisco. Today I congratulate Neil Smit on his leadership and an impressive career. I thank him for his service to our Nation and wish him well in his new role.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I wish to honor and celebrate the holiday of Vaisakhi, a very significant day for those who practice Sikhism. The world's fifth largest religion, Sikhism was founded over five centuries ago and was introduced to the United States in the 19th century. Today there are over 500,000 Sikh adherents in the United States. Pennsylvania is the home of many proud Sikh Americans, who make a positive impact in their workplaces, communities, and to our country. They are an important part of the rich cultural fabric of the Commonwealth. There are many gurdwaras, or centers of worship, located across the State, which serve a vital role for both the Sikh community and people of other faiths. This year, Vaisakhi will be celebrated on Friday, April 14. On this day in 1699, Guru Gobind Singh created the Khalsa, a fellowship of devout Sikhs. Vaisakhi is a festival that marks both this occasion and the spring harvest. This holiday, which is meant to promote service to others, reminds us of the valuable contributions Sikh Americans make in many of our communities. The Sikh community around the world recognizes this important holiday with parades, dancing, singing, visits to gurdwaras, and other festivities. Celebrations also include performing ``seva,'' or selfless service, which can include providing free meals to others or volunteering for different service projects in their communities. This year, the Sikh Coordination Committee East Coast has organized a National Sikh Day Parade here in Washington, DC, on April 8, 2017, to commemorate this occasion. Thousands of Sikhs from all over United States are participating in this parade, which will celebrate the Sikh identity and culture. As a member of the American Sikh Congressional Caucus, I am honored to represent the Sikh community of Pennsylvania, and I wish the Sikh American community a joyous Vaisakhi. Thank you.

Mr. TOOMEY

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

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. There has been a lot of debate about Judge Gorsuch and his candidacy for the Supreme Court. Let me first review some of the things that really have not been debated. One is the intellect and the education and the knowledge of this man. It is really extraordinary. Judge Gorsuch attended Columbia University as an undergrad, Harvard Law School, and he went on to Oxford for postgraduate work. Nobody disputes the intellect, the education, and the knowledge that this man brings to this job. Nobody disputes his experience and qualifications, either. How could they? He has spent 10 years on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, the second highest level of courts in our American system. There is no question that Neil Gorsuch has the experience and the qualifications. Character and temperament are extremely important--actually, essential--characteristics for a judge or a Justice. I have heard nobody criticize the character or temperament of Judge Gorsuch, whatsoever. In fact, he has only gotten glowing praise about both his integrity, his character, his temperament, and the way he treats people in his courtroom and throughout his life. There is also no disputing that he has enjoyed very broad bipartisan support in the past and significantly to this day. First of all, there was not a single Senator who opposed his confirmation to the Tenth Circuit when he was nominated and confirmed. President Barack Obama's Acting Solicitor General, a Democrat, has endorsed Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court. A bipartisan group of attorneys, former colleagues from his law firm, classmates of his, and many people across the political spectrum from both parties who know this man personally have strongly endorsed his candidacy. So as to these very important criteria--his intellect, his education, his knowledge, his experience, his temperament, his character-- everything about this man is really quite extraordinary, and that is not even disputed. That is almost universally acknowledged. So what is the attack? What is the criticism that we hear about Judge Gorsuch? Well, one is this notion that somehow he is outside the mainstream. We have heard this from some of our colleagues who intend not to support Judge Gorsuch. One of the things about being a circuit court judge is that it is actually quite easy to evaluate whether or not a circuit court judge is outside the mainstream because, as it happens, appellate court or circuit court judges don't rule alone. They rule in groups. It is usually a group of three when they are hearing a case as a subset of the full court, or it is the entire court. Either way, they are ruling with other judges. So you can evaluate, for instance, how often they are by themselves, how often they are the sole minority dissenting view, because that might be an indication of someone who is outside the mainstream. It is interesting. In the over 2,700 cases that Neil Gorsuch has decided on, in 99 percent of those cases, he was in the majority. In 97 percent of the cases, it was unanimous. How could that possibly be outside of the mainstream? That is not a valid argument at all. As to the people who are trying to manufacture some opposition to Judge Gorsuch, what they are doing is they are cherry-picking a handful of the over 2,700 cases in which he has participated in, and they try to find a handful in which Judge Gorsuch did not rule in favor of litigants that our Democratic colleagues believe are politically sympathetic. That is what their argument has come down to. The Democratic minority leader has been down on the floor for a speech, and I will quote from his speech. He said: ``I saw a judge who repeatedly decided with insurance companies that wanted to deny disability benefits to employees.'' The Democratic leader goes on to say: ``I saw a judge who, in unemployment discrimination, sided with employers the great majority of the time.'' Here is another quote: ``Time and time again, his rulings favor the already powerful over ordinary Americans.'' The Democratic leader went on to marvel: ``Judge Gorsuch ruled against a teacher.'' ``Judge Gorsuch ruled against a truck driver.'' Now, even if you set aside the fact that the facts in these cases have been wildly distorted in the retelling that I have heard, and if you set aside the fact that even in those very cases in which Judge Gorsuch has ruled, often he has ruled with the Democratic judges who enjoy the support of our Democratic colleagues, and even if you ignore the fact that in many of these cases he was bound by precedent--he had no choice--you could also ignore all the many other cases in which Judge Gorsuch ruled in favor of workers and unions and people who allege sexual harassment, environmentalists, immigrants, and other sympathetic litigants. The minority leader put all that aside. I think we have to ask a fundamental question: What is missing in this critique of Judge Gorsuch's decisions? What I find striking is that what is missing is any reference to the law. I don't hear them mention the law. I have not heard any of our Democratic colleagues, who intend to oppose Judge Gorsuch, say that he ignored the law or that he violated the law or that he misapplied the law or that he misunderstood the law. I don't hear anything of the sort. Now, why do you suppose that is? I think I know why that is. I think because to many of the people who are threatening to oppose Neil Gorsuch, the law isn't what really matters the most. What really matters the most is that politically favored special interests or someone that they think the public will be sympathetic to has to win regardless of the law. They want a policy outcome and one that would benefit their perceived preferred litigants, rather than the law. Here is what I think. I really think there are two unpardonable offenses in the minds of our friends and colleagues who are opposing Neil Gorsuch's nomination. The first is that Judge Gorsuch believes in the rule of law. I know he does. It is very, very clear. To some degree, there is a fundamental debate going on here between those who support his candidacy and those who oppose it, and it is fundamentally about the role of judges in the U.S. constitutional system. One view, the view that I have--and I believe the one that Judge Gorsuch shares--is that the law totally matters. What the law says matters, and that includes the Constitution. The words matter. And not only that, but it is up to the American people to change laws or to change the Constitution, if the American people see fit. It is up to judges to impartially apply the law and the Constitution, as it is written, and that is an important thing here. Both of these are important. Under our view of the world, a judge is supposed to see everyone the same regardless of race, sex, wealth, political affiliation, or other characteristics. A judge is obligated to neutrally apply the law. Whether you are a man or a woman, young or old, rich or poor, Black or White, that is not supposed to matter to a judge. There is a reason our symbol of justice, Lady Justice, is depicted wearing a blindfold--it is because as a judge you are not supposed to decide based on these characteristics of a person; you are supposed to decide based on what the law says. This is fundamental to an independent judiciary, to a nation that lives by the rule of law. But the other view, the critics' view--they constantly go back not to the law or the application of the law but to how sympathetic the litigants are. That is what matters most to them. That is an implicit rejection of the notion that everyone is equal before the law. Instead, in that world view, some are more equal than others and the law means whatever a judge thinks it should mean, and that is based significantly on whom the litigants are. The same applies to the Constitution, in their world view, that of those who are opposing Judge Gorsuch. The Constitution can't really mean exactly what it says--that can be very inconvenient--and so what the Supreme Court is supposed to be, in the minds of our friends who are opposing Judge Gorsuch, the Supreme Court is really a permanently sitting constitutional convention. Make up the Constitution as it goes along. Decide what it means today as opposed to what it meant yesterday or what it might mean tomorrow. The judges are supposed to be acutely sensitive to the race, wealth, political affiliation of the people who come before them, and those criteria matter a great deal. In fact, you have to ask yourself, if that is the way you view the world, why even bother having a trial? Why not have a checklist and see whether the litigants come down on the politically sympathetic side of the ledger, and once you know that, you can decide? Why bother with the hassles or a trial or a case? I would suggest that this approach to the law--the law that depends on the race, ethnicity, or any other criteria of the litigants--such a law is not a law at all. That is how a banana republic imposes the law; that is not how America views the law. So my view, as I stated earlier, that the law means exactly what it says and nothing other than what it says--and that also applies to the Constitution--that is a view which is often described as originalism. The opponents' view, especially with respect to the Constitution--they believe the Constitution is a living document, meaning changes over time, in their view. I would suggest that this is the fundamental choice between the rule of law in the former case and the rule by judges in the latter case. Justice Scalia once said: ``Every tin horn dictator in the world today, every president for life, has a Bill of Rights.'' The Bill of Rights only protects us if it is enforced and if it is enforced consistently and equally for everyone who is involved. How much protection does our Bill of Rights provide if, as Chief Justice Hughes stated in 1907, ``the Constitution is what the judges say it is''? Well, as Justice Scalia observed, once the original meaning of the Constitution can be set aside and judges can rewrite it, then they can rewrite and limit individual liberty or any other of the rights that are so fundamental to the nature of our country. Let me give an example that makes this very specific. There is a case that came before the Supreme Court not very long ago called the Kelo decision. The Fifth Amendment states very clearly that the government cannot take private property unless it is ``for public use.'' That is what it says in the Constitution. Look it up. Well, in the Kelo case, five Supreme Court Justices decided that public use can mean private use. The word ``public'' can mean ``private.'' Specifically in this case, what they said was that the government can come along and take an individual's home and give it to a private company--in this case, to use as a parking lot for a private venture. This is blatantly unconstitutional. It is very, very clear. Yet that is what happened when five Justices decided they could just rewrite the Constitution as they prefer it. Here is the thing about this: Even if you believe it is a good idea to be able to take someone's house and give it to another private developer because he has a better use for it than the homeowner, if you think that is a good idea--I don't happen to think that is a good idea, but you might. If you do, we have a mechanism for making that policy permissible. You change the Constitution. You amend the Constitution. You can strike that word or insert another clause. There are any number of ways you can change that. But here is what is so important: Under our constitutional system, the only people who get to change the Constitution are the American people. They do it through their elected representatives in the Congress and in the State legislatures, but they are the sovereigns. It is the American people who get to make these decisions, who determine policy, not five unelected guys wearing black robes, because when they get to make that policy, they are not accountable to anyone. They can't be fired. The Presiding Officer and I can be fired. If we are not doing the job our constituents want us to do, we will be fired. That is how we are held accountable. Our constituents can replace us with people who will reflect the policies they want. That is why we are the policymakers under our constitutional system. I believe Neil Gorsuch completely understands this. It is one of the reasons our friends on the other side of the aisle can't bring themselves to support him. I think there were two unpardonable sins that Neil Gorsuch has committed. I just mentioned the first. I think the second one was that he was nominated by Donald Trump. We have folks in this Chamber who don't seem to be able to accept that they lost an election, and they are reflexively opposing whatever it is President Trump wants, and apparently they intend for that opposition to continue indefinitely. In a public interview, the minority leader was quoted as saying: ``It is hard for me to imagine a nominee that Donald Trump would choose that would get Republican support that we could support.'' He was asked a follow-up question: ``So will you do your best to hold the seat open?'' The Democratic minority leader replied: ``Absolutely.'' Hold the seat open for 4 years or maybe 8 years? This is outrageous, and it is unprecedented. If the minority leader were to get his way, for the first time in the history of the Republic, we would have a Supreme Court nominee defeated by a partisan filibuster. Let me stress this. This has never happened before in the history of the country. How many times have we nominated and confirmed Supreme Court Justices? Never once have we had a partisan filibuster used to block the consideration of a nominee. We have had people withdraw. We have had people who were voted down. The case of Abe Fortas was an unusual case where there was a bipartisan filibuster because there was a perception of ethics problems, and he, in fact, had to resign as an Associate Justice. The bipartisan filibuster was used when there was an attempt by President Johnson to elevate him to Chief Justice. That is not the precedent. There is no precedent. Take the case of Clarence Thomas. In my lifetime, I am pretty sure Clarence Thomas was the most controversial nominee we have ever had. It was a brutal, very difficult, very contentious, really ugly process-- the hearings, the nomination process, the confirmation process. In the end, Clarence Thomas was confirmed with 52 votes. Any Senator in the body could have insisted on a 60-vote threshold if it was there, but nobody did. No Senator did because the custom has been that Supreme Court Justices get confirmed if they have a majority of support. So what the minority leader wants to do is completely departing from that and establishing a new threshold. The minority leader made an argument that is absolutely laughable. He suggested that because President Obama's nominees got 60 votes, well, then President Trump's should. What is laughable about that is the reason President Obama's nominees got 60 votes is because Republicans gave them those votes. I was running for the Senate at the time that Sonia Sotomayor was nominated, and I pointed out that there was a lot I disagreed about with her. I am sure I will not be happy with many of her decisions. But here we are in the President's new term--relatively early--and this is a qualified, capable person. I am not going to obstruct. I voted to confirm her, and a number of Republicans did join the Democrats, and President Obama got Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan confirmed to the bench. The minority leader has suggested that there is this tradition of 60 votes. Well, you don't have to take my word for it; the Washington Post Fact Checker--not exactly the mouthpiece of the Republican Party--did their fact-checking analysis, and they said it was absolutely false. They gave him three Pinocchios. It is also one of the many ironies of this that the very same Democrats who insist that we should allow them to permanently block any Supreme Court nominee because they won't provide the votes to get to 60 are the ones who actually did break the Senate tradition and establish a 50-vote threshold when they wanted to pack the DC Circuit Court of Appeals back in 2013. Now they suggest that if we use the same tactic they used--although we are doing it for a different reason--that this would be an abomination, that the Democrats would never do this. Well, actually, they did in 2013. But as for the circumstances we face now, there is no mystery about what they would have done because they told us just 12 days before the election. Our Senator Tim Kaine, the Democratic nominee for Vice President, was asked: ``What happens if,'' as everyone expected at the time, ``Hillary Clinton becomes President and the Democrats take control of the Senate, if Republicans were to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee? What would you do?'' I will quote Senator Kaine. He said: ``We will change the Senate rules to uphold the law, that the court will be nine members.'' Here is the truth: If the election had gone differently, if Hillary Clinton had won and if Democrats were in control of the Senate, then Republicans would have probably provided the votes for a competent, capable, qualified Supreme Court nominee, just as Republicans did for Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. That is what history has shown. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues at this point seem unwilling-- or at least some of them are--to provide the same bipartisan cooperation to a new President attempting to fill a vacancy that Republicans provided to President Obama. Let me conclude with this: The case for confirming Judge Gorsuch was summed up pretty well by the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune-- again, not exactly the RNC's mouthpiece--in endorsing Neil Gorsuch. They said: Here is a judge who knows the law and knows the role of the judiciary: He isn't on the bench to make law, he's there to interpret it faithfully, because the separation of powers among the branches of government serves our democracy. Sometimes the result benefits liberal positions, sometimes conservative. . . . Some of Gorsuch's critics think judges should be creative and expansive depending on the political climate--to treat laws differently on a cold night than a warm one. Those critics suggest that they fear Gorsuch won't follow the law, but the opposite is more true: They fear he will. Gorsuch should be confirmed. If our Democratic colleagues aren't willing to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, then there is no one they are going to vote to confirm to the Supreme Court. And we cannot allow a Democratic minority to block an up-or-down vote and deny filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court for 4 or 8 years. We simply can't allow that to happen, and I trust that we won't. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TOOMEY

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

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleague the senior Senator from Texas.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I think a little background will be helpful. The Social Security Administration has promulgated a rule regarding when its employees should be sending names to be added to the NICS system. The NICS system is the system by which a person, when they are added to it, may not legally possess a firearm. The rule has been finalized, but it has not yet gone into effect. It is scheduled to go into effect on December 19 this year. I wish to say, I think the rule has the right intention. Under Federal statute, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 stipulates that every quarter each Federal agency must send to the Attorney General any information it has showing that any person is disqualified from possessing a gun. Each agency also has the responsibility to correct or update any information it sends to the Attorney General. There is no question the Social Security Administration has a duty to send information to the NICS system. The purpose of the rule is to send to NICS the names of individuals who are dangerously mentally ill and thus are not legally entitled to a firearm. There are some protections that are provided in this rule. For instance, under the rule promulgated by the Social Security Administration, a third party cannot get a gun owner declared mentally ill without the gun owner's knowledge or consent. Under this rule, the individual has to file a disability claim for himself or herself. The rule provides some mechanisms for individuals to challenge their inclusion in the NICS system if they wish to do so. There is serious disagreement and confusion about some other very important aspects of this rule. For instance, I have heard from advocates for people with disabilities. They are very concerned that the list of mental illnesses, for instance, is to too expansive and might very well sweep in people who have mental health issues but are not at all dangerous to themselves or to others. These advocates for people with disabilities have also expressed the concern that the rule doesn't require that a medical professional actually be involved in the determination of whether a person is dangerously mentally ill. These disability rights advocates raise the concern that an agency bureaucrat without any medical expertise could potentially add someone to the NICS system without a doctor being involved and without that person being in any way dangerous. These advocates also argue that there is not a sufficient process for individuals who are wrongly denied their Second Amendment rights. For instance, under the rule, it appears it could take years for an individual to adjudicate this question if there was a case of mistaken identity or they were deemed to have a mental health issue that they challenged. It could take years for them to resolve. All that time they would be disqualified from owning a firearm. Even if that individual prevailed and it turned out that the Social Security Administration had mistakenly put them in the NICS system, their legal fees would still have to be incurred by the individual, despite the fact that they had no responsibility for this. I agree something ought to be done in this area, but I am not fully confident this rule gets it exactly right. My preferred outcome here, my ideal, would be for the Social Security Administration to produce a new rule--one that takes into account these legitimate concerns that have been raised, especially by people in the disability rights community. I would look forward to working with the Social Security Administration, and I could very well support such a rule, and I would support such a rule if they addressed these things properly. I would further say that we have time to do this. As I mentioned earlier, while the rule has been finalized, it has not yet gone into effect. It doesn't go into effect until December 19 of this year. We have over 10 months to reconsider and get this right. Some have suggested, wait a minute, we will never have a chance to redo this if we pass the Congressional Review Act, which repeals this rule because it will preclude the Social Security Administration from promulgating a new version of the rule. People say that because the Congressional Review Act states that if we enact this resolution of disapproval ``a new rule that is substantially the same as such a rule may not be issued.'' It is my opinion that a new rule issued by the Social Security Administration that addresses appropriately the concerns I mentioned would certainly not be substantially the same as the current rule. It would be a very different rule. Since it would not be substantially the same, it would be permissible under the Congressional Review Act for the Social Security Administration to correct these flaws and come up with a new rule. I want to ask the senior Senator from Texas, the majority whip and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is it your opinion that if subsequent to passage of the Congressional Review Act with respect to this rule, if the Social Security Administration promulgated a new rule that met the standards I have set forth, that in that case, the new rule would not be substantially the same as the current rule and therefore would not be precluded by passage of the Congressional Review Act; is that the opinion of the Senator from Texas?

Mr. TOOMEY. I thank the Senator from Texas for joining me in this discussion. We certainly share the view about the possibility of a future different rule, and I look forward to working with the Senator from Texas as well as people at the Social Security Administration to achieve that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be the next Attorney General of the United States. I do that as someone who has known him personally quite well for 6 years now. I want to do this briefly because we are pressed for time, but I want to make a few points. First, I think we all recognize the terrific credentials that Senator Sessions brings to this job--his career, his lifetime serving his country, from his time in the U.S. Army Reserve, to his 12 years as a U.S. attorney, to the 2 years he spent as the attorney general of Alabama, all before being elected to the U.S. Senate. But much more importantly, I am so impressed by this good man, this good and decent man's commitment to protecting all members of our society and his sense of fairness. Let me give a couple of examples. It was Senator Sessions who worked with a Democratic colleague, Senator Coons, on legislation to help women and children who were victims of abuse. It was Senator Sessions who joined me in our successful effort to provide hundreds of millions of dollars of additional funds each year to victims of child abuse and sexual assault and domestic violence. Senator Sessions' sense of fairness is also illustrated in his approach to law enforcement. It is probably widely known that he has the endorsement of every major law enforcement group in America, but Senator Sessions has also spent a lot of time and effort making sure people on the other side of law enforcement are treated fairly and humanely. It was Senator Sessions who led the successful effort to eliminate the disparity in sentences for crack users versus cocaine users, working with Senator Durbin, a Democrat. They succeeded because Senator Sessions understood that the disparity--the much harsher penalty on the use of crack cocaine versus white powdered cocaine--was completely unfair and overwhelmingly adversely affected African Americans. That was not acceptable to Jeff Sessions. It was Senator Sessions who in 2003 joined with Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy in introducing and helping to successfully enact the Prison Rape Elimination Act because of his concern about the appalling abuse experienced by some people in our prisons. That was not acceptable to Jeff Sessions. Let me just say that--I am going to be very candid. The most objectionable and offensive slander I have heard against Senator Sessions is the notion that somehow he has some kind of racist leanings. That is an outrageous and dishonest charge. I have known this man very well. There is not a racist bone in his body. This is a man who has been endorsed by many, many African-American leaders. This is a man who personally took on the KKK every chance he had when he was serving as the U.S. attorney. In fact, arguably, he was the reason that the law enforcement--in fact, he personally did probably more than anyone else to bankrupt the KKK by design so that he could destroy that organization in Alabama, which is exactly what he succeeded in doing. Jeff Sessions is a man who has tremendous respect for the law, a reverence for the law, respect for the rule of law. There is absolutely no question in my mind, from my own personal experience with him for these years, that he will enforce the law vigorously and fairly. Several of my Democratic colleagues have come down here and they have rattled off policy areas in which they disagree with Senator Sessions. You know what, there are areas where I disagree with Senator Sessions. I guarantee you, there are lots of areas where I had disagreements with the members of President Obama's Cabinet. But it never occurred to me to expect that I would have complete agreement on every policy issue with every candidate for a Cabinet position. What I know about Jeff Sessions is that he is an extremely well- qualified attorney, with outstanding credentials, has spent his adult life serving his country and his State, that he has gone to the mat to work for people who are some of the least fortunate and people who have been through appalling circumstances. He has been their champion. I just know he is going to stand up for the principles of the rule of law and equal justice before the law. The last point I want to make is, when Republican Senators gather periodically for our lunches and our private discussions, every Republican Senator knows that when we are discussing something, if Jeff Sessions believes that we are talking about doing something that is a violation of a principle that he holds, he is going to be the first guy who is going to stand up, and he is going to say: My colleagues, this would be a mistake. This is not the right thing to do. He is the one who is the first to stand up to any other member of the conference; it doesn't matter who it is. If he thinks what they are suggesting is not the right thing to do, not the principled thing to do, not consistent with our role as Senators, not consistent with our principles, Jeff Sessions is always willing to stand up for what is right. He will stand up for what is right as the Attorney General of the United States. I am proud to support him, and I urge all of my colleagues to do likewise. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

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