Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``yea.''

I object.

Mr. President, if you are in a shaky financial situation, wondering how you are going to meet your obligations, your first instinct isn't generally to wildly increase your spending, unless, of course, you are a congressional Democrat.

Our Nation's Medicare system is on shaky financial ground. Democrats' answer is to massively expand the program to the tune of trillions of dollars.

Two weeks ago, the Social Security and Medicare trustees released their annual report. According to the report, beginning in 2026, Medicare will not be able to meet its obligations. This doesn't even seem to register on Democrats' radar. They steamroll right past the program's already shaky financial status and ask the American people to believe that, somehow, massively expanding the program to include almost the entire U.S. population at a pricetag of staggering proportions will work.

It is difficult to overstate just how unrealistic Democrats' Medicare for All fantasy is. Start with the pricetag: $32 trillion over 10 years. To put that number in perspective, that is more money than the Federal Government has spent in the last 8 years combined--on everything. That $32 trillion estimate is likely too low, as it was based on an earlier version of the Medicare for All plan of the Senator from Vermont. His new plan also includes a massive new benefit--funding for long-term care, an enormously expensive part of the healthcare system.

Democrats' last attempt to have the government run a long-term care program fell apart before it was even implemented because the program was not financially viable.

Let's leave aside for a minute the tremendous cost and the tax hikes on ordinary Americans that would be required to pay for it. Let's talk about the massive difficulty of implementing such a system. The junior Senator from Vermont expects people to believe that the government can successfully transition more than 180 million people off of their private insurance and into government-run healthcare in 4 years. To put that in perspective, the Obama administration had 3\1/2\ years to implement the ObamaCare exchanges, which were intended to cover a tiny fraction of the number of people who would be covered under Medicare for All. As I am sure most Americans remember, the government couldn't put together a working website in that 3\1/2\ year time period. Yet Democrats somehow expect us to believe that they can smoothly transition 180 million Americans into government-run insurance in just 4 years.

We are also somehow supposed to believe things will be much more efficient with government running your healthcare. It is certainly true there is a lot of bureaucracy in our current healthcare system, but I am fairly sure the answer is not giving control of healthcare to the mother ship of bureaucracy--the Federal Government. Democrats also apparently expect Americans to believe that the Federal Government will be able to deliver almost unlimited healthcare for free. Unfortunately, no matter how much money the Federal Government takes in with higher taxes, there will eventually be a limit to how much it can spend on healthcare.

What happens when it can't afford to meet demand, which, by the way, tends to increase substantially when something is offered for free? I will tell you what happens: long wait times and rationing of care, which have become the hallmarks of socialized medicine in other countries.

There is no question that our healthcare system is not perfect. Republicans are currently working on legislation to address some of the healthcare challenges facing Americans, but destroying our current health system to fix the problems we have would be like razing a house to the ground to fix a leak in the bathroom sink.

There are lots of good things about our healthcare system. A lot of people in this country are happy with their healthcare. We need to preserve the good things about our system and fix what is not working and not force everyone into a fantastically expensive one-size-fits- all, government-run healthcare system that would reduce everyone's quality of care.

The Democratic chairman of the House Rules Committee, discussing a House hearing on Medicare for All, recently said: ``It's a serious proposal that deserves serious consideration on Capitol Hill.''

I would argue that it is the exact opposite. The only things that are serious about this proposal are the serious consequences it would have for the American people if it were ever implemented. It is deeply irresponsible of my Democrat colleagues to peddle this government-run nightmare as a legitimate healthcare solution. One of our former colleagues, Tom Coburn, used to say: If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it is free.

Let's hope Democrats decide to take a more serious approach to healthcare reform before Americans are forced to live under the ugly reality of their socialist fantasy.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Mr. President, we reached a milestone last week with the confirmation of President Trump's 100th Federal judge, and, frankly, it is a milestone that should have come earlier. Had this been another President, it almost undoubtedly would have come earlier. But, unfortunately, the response to this President has been characterized by what the leader aptly referred to yesterday as ``unhinged partisanship.''

Now, 2\1/2\ years on from President Trump's election, Democrats still can't get over the fact that they lost. Somehow, my colleagues missed the section in government class where you learn that is what happens sometimes in democracies. Sometimes you win. Sometimes--and I hate to break it to my colleagues--sometimes you lose. It is not fun. No one likes having their candidate lose, but that is what happens sometimes when you have free elections.

No one expects Democrats to just sign on to everything President Trump says or does. No one expects them to sign on to most of what President Trump says or does. I certainly understand that they have philosophical disagreements with many of his policies. I have been in their position. During my time in public office, there have certainly been Presidents with whom I disagreed a substantial part of the time. I like to think that I didn't reflexively oppose everything they said or did simply because they weren't my preferred candidate for the office. I am fairly certain President Trump couldn't eat a cheese sandwich without some Democrat crying treason.

Well, let's step back a minute. Maybe it is not that my Democratic colleagues are reflexively opposing everything this President does. Maybe it is not unhinged partisanship. Maybe it is just that they disagree with every single word he says, every single thing he does, and every single individual he nominates--except in the case of nominees, at least, we know that isn't true.

Let's go back to those judicial nominations. Democrats have engaged in a

truly unprecedented amount of obstruction on President Trump's judicial nominees. As of May 2, Democrats have forced cloture votes on almost 65 percent of President Trump's judicial nominees--65 percent. At the same point in President Obama's first term, Republicans had required cloture votes on just 2\1/2\ percent of his judicial nominees--65 percent to 2\1/2\ percent. But, again, maybe that is because Democrats have serious philosophical objections to these nominees--except they don't, because again and again, Democrats have turned around and voted for the Trump judicial nominees they obstructed.

One egregious example occurred in January of 2018 when Democrats forced the Senate to spend more than a week considering four district court judges even though not one single Democrat voted against their confirmation. That is right. Democrats forced the Senate to spend more than a week considering the nomination of four judges even though not one single Democrat opposed their confirmation. These judges could have been confirmed in a matter of minutes by voice vote, but Democrats forced the Senate to spend more than a week on their consideration-- time that could have been spent on genuinely controversial nominees or on some of the many important issues facing our country.

As of April 2 of this year, Democrats have forced cloture votes on 20 of the district court judges the Senate has confirmed. Ultimately, however, 19 of those 20 judges were confirmed by more than 68 votes. Now, 17 of those 20 were confirmed by more than 80 votes, and 12 of those 20 were confirmed without a single vote in opposition. Yet Democrats obstructed all of them.

One hundred judicial nominees confirmed is a solid milestone, but, as I said before, it is a milestone that should have come earlier and would have come earlier if Democrats hadn't chosen to engage in a massive campaign of partisan obstruction. Despite a lot of hard work by the Judiciary Committee and a robust pace of nominations from the President, the number of judicial vacancies is actually 25 percent higher today than it was when the President took office, and a near record number of those vacancies are designated as judicial emergencies. That shouldn't be the case, but thanks to Democrats' knee- jerk obstruction, that is where we are.

Regardless of how much the Democrats obstruct, though, Republicans will keep moving forward. Despite Democrats' best efforts, we confirmed a record number of circuit court judges during the President's first 2 years, and we are going to keep working our way through the President's nominees, judicial and otherwise. We are committed to filling vacancies in both the executive branch and the judiciary so that the American people have the fully functioning government they deserve.

Perhaps someday Democrats will decide to drop the obstruction and to join us in the business of actually getting things done for the American people.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 8, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``New entrants in the National Airspace.''

Committee on Environment and Public Works

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 8, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' civil work program.''

Committee on Finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 8, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining MACRA implementation.''

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 8, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Indian Affairs

The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 8, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Special Committee on Aging

The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 8, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Older American Act.''

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 8, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration

The Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 8, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. President, before I begin, I want to take a moment to say how sorry I am that the Senate will be losing Senator Mike Enzi at the end of next year.

During his 20-plus years in the Senate, Mike has been a leader on so many issues, including healthcare and the budget. As the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, he oversaw major pension reform. As the chairman of the Budget Committee, he was an indispensable part of the effort to comprehensibly reform our Nation's outdated Tax Code and put more money in the American people's pockets. As always, he has been a powerful voice for small businesses during that process, not to mention a powerful voice for the West throughout his entire career.

The Senate will be a lesser place without Mike Enzi, but he has earned some more time with his wife Diana, their three children, and his four grandchildren.

I am grateful to have served with Mike and grateful that Senators will

have a little time before his well-deserved retirement to continue to draw on his wisdom and expertise over the course of the next year and a half.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).