Floor Statements

Mr. President, I greatly appreciate having this opportunity to share with my colleagues the presentation of an award that means a great deal to me for a number of reasons. It is the president's medal that will be presented by Steven Knapp, the president of The George Washington University, GW. Its recipient, Edward Gnehm, has been a friend of mine ever since we were college freshmen at GW.

When Edward Gnehm, Jr., or ``Skip'' as everyone came to know him, came to Washington, DC, from rural Georgia and I left rural Wyoming to tackle the challenge of my own college education at GW, I don't think either one of us knew what a great impact those 4 years would have on us and how our college experience would change our lives forever. It was a purely random thing, but when the administration of George Washington University decided which rooms we would use as freshman, they assigned Skip and me to the same dorm. We became friends pretty quickly. Then, when we pledged the same fraternity, we became brothers as well. Skip is the only real brother I have ever had, and I have relied on him and enjoyed that same kind of friendship and relationship ever since.

Our room was a pretty interesting place to be. I was a night person, studying accounting and business issues that would become my first major career. Skip, on the other hand, was a morning person, interested in reading whatever he could to sharpen his knowledge and understanding of foreign relations. He had a dream even back then that he would someday be an ambassador for the United States.

As I watched him pursue his dream, I learned that Skip was an interesting guy, very smart, dedicated, and determined to be the best he could possibly be at his chosen field. He helped me learn to expect the same of myself.

Soon, our college years were over, and we each went our separate ways, keeping in contact, pursuing our life's dreams and taking advantage of every opportunity that presented itself. Soon Skip was making his way through our Nation's diplomatic and foreign service system. For my part, what began as a small business soon had me working my way through Wyoming's political system on the local, State, and national levels.

As the years went quickly past, Skip and I continued to follow a similar path in life as we both met and married our special wives. Our kids were even born about the same times. Skip found in his wife, Peggy, and I found in my wife, Diana/, the kind of support and assistance it was going to take if we were to achieve the kind of success we were both hoping for. For Skip, Peggy's encouragement and guidance has helped him to be a force for the United States and to serve our country all over the world. For my part, Diana has been exactly what I needed to serve the people of Wyoming at every opportunity.

For Skip, one of the greatest moments of his career had to be his service as our Ambassador to Kuwait. He was nominated to that post when Saddam Hussein came calling with his army and attempted to set up shop there. Fortunately, Skip had what it takes to face up to a challenge like that with great courage, bravery, and determination. Those who knew him weren't surprised. We knew he had it in him, and when our Nation emerged from that challenge, our President,

George Bush, knew he had chosen wisely when he selected Skip Gnehm for that difficult post. I got to watch on television as Skip raised the American flag at the recaptured U.S. Embassy in Kuwait.

I could go on at length about some of his other posts and the places he has served to promote and protect U.S. interests. He has been our Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations. He has also served as our Ambassador to Australia and to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, presenting his credentials on 9/11 and then flying to peace meetings with the King of Jordan. He still has special contacts throughout the Middle East.

Over the years, Skip received a number of awards for his work overseas, including the Secretary of State's Distinguished Service Award for his service in Jordan and Superior Honor Awards for his service in Kuwait and Riyadh.

Skip has also been an active force for the betterment of The George Washington University in a number of different capacities. He has been a member of the board of trustees, the vice president of the general alumni association, and the faculty representative to the board of directors.

Skip is currently on the faculty of the Elliott School of International Affairs where he is inspiring our next generation of foreign policy advisers and experts by sharing his own experience borne from a lengthy career in our foreign service. Thanks to Skip, we can rest assured that our future diplomatic efforts will be in good hands

Looking back to those days years ago when Skip and I were spending another night hitting the books for the next day's class or exam, I don't think either one of us could have dreamed how well things would turn out for the two of us. I have been given an opportunity to represent the people of Wyoming as mayor, member of the State legislature, and now as a U.S. Senator. I was always proud to work on Skip's confirmation to these different postings. Skip has had an impact all over the world and touched more lives than we will ever be able to count.

Simply put, I couldn't be more proud of Skip and all he has accomplished over the years. I don't think anyone is more deserving of the president's medal that he will receive from The George Washington University's president Steven Knapp. Steven is doing great work to promote GW and ensure its future will be even better than its past.

This is a great honor for Skip, and I am sure he couldn't be more appreciative of this recognition. It represents a lifetime of achievements for him and an amazing list of accomplishments. As the title of the classic film reminds us, Skip has had a ``wonderful life'' of which both Skip and GW can be truly proud. He represents what a tremendous advantage an education at George Washington University can be when placed in the right hands.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for April 2017. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts the Senate agreed to in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2017, S.Con.Res. 3. This information is necessary for the Senate Budget Committee to determine whether budget points of order lie against pending legislation. The Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, prepared this report pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act, CBA.

My last filing can be found in the Record on March 1, 2017. The information contained in this report captures legislative activity since that filing through April 25, 2017.

Republican Budget Committee staff prepared Tables 1-3 of this report.

Table 1 gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee exceeds or is below its allocation for budget authority and outlays under the most recently adopted budget resolution. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the CBA. For this reporting period, 14 of the 16 authorizing committees are in compliance with their allocations. The two committees out of compliance are: the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, for spending $1 million more in budget authority and outlays than allowed over each enforcement window due to passage of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017, P.L. 115-10; and the Committee on Veterans Affairs, which violates its outlay allocation by $200 million over both the fiscal year 2017-2021 and fiscal year 2017-2026 periods. The latter violation--the largest of this reporting period--stems from passage of a bill to amend the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 to modify the termination date for the Veterans Choice Program, and for other purposes, P.L. 115-26. This measure removed the August 7, 2017, sunset from the program to allow funds previously appropriated to be fully exhausted.

Tables 2-3 remain unchanged from the last report as no new appropriations activity has occurred for the fiscal year 2017 cycle.

In addition to the tables provided by Budget Committee Republican staff, I am submitting CBO tables, which I will use to enforce budget totals approved by the Congress.

CBO provided a spending and revenue report for fiscal year 2017, which helps enforce aggregate spending levels in budget resolutions under CBA section 311. In its report, CBO annualizes the temporary effects of the latest continuing resolution, which provides funding through April 28, 2017. For the enforcement of budgetary aggregates, the Budget Committee excludes this temporary funding. As such, the committee views current-law levels as being $953 billion and $583.2 billion below budget resolution levels for budget authority and outlays, respectively.

Revenues are consistent with the levels assumed in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2017. Over the fiscal year 2017-2021 and fiscal year 2017-2026 period, however, revenues are $1 million below assumed levels due to the enactment of H.J. Res. 83, P.L. 115-21, a resolution considered under the Congressional Review Act for disapproving of the rule by the Department of Labor relating to ``Clarification of Employer's Continuing Obligation to Make and Maintain an Accurate Record of Each Recordable Injury and Illness.''

Social Security outlays and revenues are at the levels assumed in S.Con.Res. 3.

CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate pay-as-you-go, PAYGO, rule. The Senate's PAYGO scorecard currently shows increased deficits of $202 million over the fiscal year 2016-2021 and fiscal year 2016-2026 periods. For both of these periods, outlays have been increased by $201 million, and revenues have been reduced by $1 million. The Senate's PAYGO rule is enforced by section 201 of S. Con.Res.21, the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution.

Finally, included in this submission is a table tracking the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor. No budget points of order have been raised since my last filing.

All years in the accompanying tables are fiscal years.

I ask unanimous consent that the tables be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I rise to offer my support for the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Several weeks ago, shortly after President Trump announced this nomination, I came to the floor to say what an admirable choice he had made and had known him for some time.

After meeting with Judge Gorsuch to discuss his nomination and after reviewing his qualifications and after observing my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee thoroughly vet him, I am all the more convinced that this man is eminently qualified to serve as America's next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

I was impressed that both of his Senators introduced him to the committee for the hearing. I was kind of surprised that the biggest comments that I heard about the hearing itself, were that he did not answer some of the questions directly. As with previous Justices, they do not answer questions directly when they are asked a theoretical question about some possible future case that might come before them and are without the details.

Another reason that I am convinced that he is very qualified is that the people with whom he went to school have all had good comments to say about him. The people he went to law school with have had good comments. The people who have been on the bar with him--in the legal arena--have had good comments to say about him and so have the other judges with whom he has worked through the years as he has moved up through the different processes.

I am confident that he is qualified to be our next Justice because of his extensive judicial experience, his commitment to the rule of law, and his principled character.

Neil Gorsuch's first job out of law school was a couple of blocks from here. Even back then, he was already preparing to serve his country on the

Supreme Court by learning from some of the best jurists in America. He performed clerkships first for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and later for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy at the U.S. Supreme Court.

After working in private practice and at the Department of Justice, in 2006 President George W. Bush nominated Judge Gorsuch to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Senate confirmed him by a voice vote. That is unanimous.

Let me say that again because it is relevant to the misplaced--in my opinion--partisan rancor we are hearing over this nomination. In 2006, only Lindsey Graham bothered to attend the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing to consider Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. This body--including then-Senators Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama--was so confident about Neil Gorsuch's character and his qualifications to serve as a Federal judge that he was confirmed by the Senate without anyone even asking for a recorded vote.

With what was in essence an endorsement from three of the most influential political figures then serving in the Senate among my colleagues across the aisle, I find some of the opposition to Judge Gorsuch and the questioning of his qualifications somewhat baffling. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will put aside the political bickering and scorekeeping that have dominated Washington over the last several months and give Neil Gorsuch a fair vote, up or down, based on his qualifications and his suitability for service on the Supreme Court.

Since joining the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch has been a busy man, doing exactly the kind of work that makes him qualified for this nomination. The Tenth Circuit exercises appellate jurisdiction of Federal cases originating in eight States that cover about 20 percent of America's landmass. That jurisdiction does include my home State of Wyoming.

As a member of the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch estimates that he sat on appellate panels considering approximately 1,800 criminal cases and 1,200 civil cases. The list of citations of case decisions he has authored is a single-spaced, 21-page document. After hearing all of those cases and drafting all of those opinions, even Judge Gorsuch's detractors have criticized only a mere handful of the hundreds of opinions he has authored.

I am confident that Neil Gorsuch is qualified to be a member of the Supreme Court because of his steadfast commitment to the rule of law. The many opinions he has written are known for being clear and easy to understand. But, most importantly, his opinions reflect his respect for following the law as it is written and for applying and adhering to judicial precedent. He is a judge who applies the law to the facts of the case and reaches the conclusion that the examination yields, regardless of his own personal beliefs.

As he said, ``Personal politics or policy preferences have no useful role in judging; regular and healthy doses of self-skepticism and humility about one's own abilities and conclusions always do.''

Judge Gorsuch is an adherent to, and defender of, America's Constitution and the separation of powers that document prescribes. As he said, ``Judges must allow the elected branches of government to flourish and citizens, through their elected representatives, to make laws appropriate to the facts and circumstances of the day.''

Throughout this nomination process, during all of which Judge Gorsuch has been under a political microscope, we have seen that he is a man of admirable character with a temperament that makes him well suited to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.

We know he has a resilient character and thick skin--qualities important to any Justice--because we have seen his demeanor and response to the criticism of his career and negative characterizations about some of his previous decisions--very few of them, I should add. We have seen his reaction in the face of accusations about his judicial independence. In the face of that--biting disparagement about the work he has spent his life trying to perfect--Judge Gorsuch has been respectful, remarkably patient, and resolutely committed to upholding the ethical canons and conduct demanded of him as a jurist.

We have glimpsed Judge Gorsuch's character as he has spoken about the people he values and those he strives to emulate. His legal heroes are people like Justice White, who he said ``followed the law wherever it took him without fear or favor to anyone''; Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, Judge Gorsuch said, ``showed me that judges can disagree without being disagreeable''; and Justice Scalia, who reminds us ``that the judge's job is to follow the words that are in the law--not to replace them with words that aren't.''

Neil Gorsuch has told us that he has also looked closer to home, to his family, to shape his character: his mother, who he said ``taught me that headlines are fleeting, but courage lasts''; his father, who he said showed him that kindness ``is the great virtue''; his paternal grandfather, who Judge Gorsuch said taught him that ``lawyers exist to help people with their problems, not the other way around.''

Neil Gorsuch has demonstrated his commitment to the law, his scholarship, and his temperament befitting that of a judge. He is eminently qualified to be a member of the Supreme Court--not in my opinion--that is what the judges have said.

I am not the only one who believes this. My office has received hundreds of calls and letters from my constituents in Wyoming urging the confirmation of Judge Gorsuch. He has a lot of support from folks in the Wyoming legal community, from both parties, whom I know and trust and whose opinions I value.

Judge Gorsuch has earned a ``well qualified'' rating--the highest rating they award from the American Bar Association. To give him this rating, the ADA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary conducted a peer review of Judge Gorsuch's integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament.

As children we all learn that you might be able to fool your parents or our teachers, but you can never fool your peers. You especially cannot fool ones with whom you have worked long hours like most judges and lawyers are known to do. You can't fool your peers. They are the ones who see you at your best and at your worst. That is why it is so remarkable that dozens of Neil Gorsuch's Harvard Law School classmates--people representing many different political and philosophical persuasions and who have known him for more than a quarter of a century--signed a letter supporting his nomination to the Supreme Court.

Among our most important duties as Members of this body is to carefully vet all nominees who come before us. Never is that responsibility so stark and so substantial than when our Nation faces a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

In November, millions of people went to the polls and rejected the kind of tired, partisan bickering when they voted for a change in Washington. Those same voters went to the polls knowing that there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court and that whoever became the next President would choose that nominee.

For many weeks now, Judge Gorsuch has been before us as that nominee. He has undergone scrutiny under which most of us would wither. We have all had time to examine his record.

I thank Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, and all of our Senate colleagues who serve on the Judiciary Committee for conducting such thorough and detailed nomination hearings that provided us ample opportunity to examine Judge Gorsuch's qualifications and temperament.

I believe there is only one logical conclusion to reach after all of this examination; that is, that Judge Neil Gorsuch is supremely qualified for and capable of the solemn and mighty task of serving as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this confirmation.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I appreciate having this opportunity to recognize the 102nd annual conference of the Wyoming State Society, Daughters of the American Revolution. This year's conference is being held in Casper and once again promises to be an interesting, informative, and inspirational event.

In the years since the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution was founded on October 11, 1890, the organization has kept its focus on the preservation and promotion of the ideals, principles, and values that are reflected in our Charters of Freedom--the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They knew what a great gift we have been given with our citizenship in the United States of America and they wanted to show their great pride in those who had fought for our freedom as a nation and won it.

With such a strong base on which to build, it is no wonder that the DAR continues to grow in size and influence. Year after year, more and more people are drawn to join the DAR and help to promote the principles and values of our Nation. That is why it is really no wonder that the DAR can now boast of over 185,000 members all over the world. In Wyoming, that enthusiasm shows itself as each chapter continues to encourage its members to be more active and involved in the day-to-day workings of our government on the local, State, and national levels.

There is only one qualification for membership in the DAR. You must be able to trace your lineage back to the days of our fight for freedom, when a young nation took up arms to sever the ties between the United States and Great Britain. Some member of your family must have been a part of our American Revolution for you to be accepted into the DAR as a member. It is then up to you to continue the work that a member of your family began.

That legacy has been handed down to the members of the DAR and to all of us as American citizens. It is also the legacy we will hand down to our children and grandchildren.

We recognize the members of the DAR and the difference all of you are making as individuals and as members of an organization that has been keeping the ``Spirit of `76'' alive for generations now. The principles and values that are embodied in our Charters of Freedom have helped you to make a difference and that has helped to make our nation a better place for us all to live.

Thank you for the good work you do.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rules of the Senate Committee on the Budget for the 115th Congress be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for March 2017. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the

amounts the Senate agreed to in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2017, S. Con. Res. 3. This information is necessary for the Senate Budget Committee to determine whether budget points of order lie against pending legislation. It has been prepared by the Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act, CBA.

My last filing, which was based on enforceable levels relative to the fiscal year 2016 budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 11, and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, P.L. 114-74, can be found in the Record for November 16, 2016. The information contained in this report for fiscal year 2017 is current through February 27, 2017.

Tables 1-3 of this report are prepared by my staff on the Budget Committee.

Table 1 gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee exceeds or is below its allocation for budget authority and outlays under the most recently adopted budget resolution. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, CBA. All committees are in compliance with their allocations assumed in the budget resolution and match the levels that I included in the allocation enforcement filing of January 17, 2017.

Table 2 gives the amount by which the Senate Committee on Appropriations exceeds or is below the statutory spending limits for fiscal year 2017. This information is used to determine points of order related to the spending caps found in sections 312 and 314 of the CBA. As the Federal Government is currently operating under the terms of the latest continuing resolution and temporary funding is not included in enforcement totals, this scorecard shows $543.5 billion in security and $415.2 billion in nonsecurity budget authority remain available for full-year appropriations.

Table 3 tracks compliance with the fiscal year 2017 limit for overall changes in mandatory programs, CHIMPS, in appropriations bills, established in the fiscal year 2016 budget resolution. The limit for this fiscal year is $19.1 billion. To date, there are no recorded CHIMP entries on this scorecard. Division A of the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, P.L. 114-254, included a qualifying CHIMP, $170 million, but the Appropriations Committee included a provision to prevent its budgetary effects from being entered onto the scorecard. This exclusion was the first of its kind since the creation of the new rule in 2015. This information is used for determining points of order under section 3103 of that resolution.

In addition to the tables provided by Budget Committee Republican staff, I am submitting tables from CBO, which I will use for enforcement of budget totals agreed to by the Congress.

CBO provided a spending and revenue report for fiscal year 2017. This information is used to enforce aggregate spending levels in budget resolutions under section 311 of the CBA.

For fiscal year 2017, CBO annualizes the temporary effects of the latest continuing resolution that provides funding through April 28, 2017. For the enforcement of budgetary aggregates, the Budget Committee excludes this temporary funding. As such, the committee views current- law levels as being $953 billion and $583.2 billion below budget resolution levels for budget authority and outlays, respectively. Revenues are consistent with the levels assumed in the budget resolution. Finally, Social Security outlays and revenues are at the levels assumed in S. Con. Res. 3.

CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate pay-as-you-go, PAYGO, rule. Following passage of the budget resolution in January, I reset the Senate's PAYGO scorecard to zero. Since passage of the resolution, there have been no laws enacted that have a significant effect on the Federal Government's budget deficit over either the 6- or 11-year periods. The Senate's PAYGO rule is enforced by section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution.

Finally, included in this submission is a table tracking the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor. No budget points of order have been raised since the passage of the budget resolution.

All years in the accompanying tables are fiscal years.

I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, when I woke up this morning I was remembering some of the Old West stories about catching the culprit and hanging him. Then we got a little more sophisticated out West, and we said: You know, we need to give that person a fair trial and then hang him.

Sometimes I feel like these Cabinet position hearings are exactly that. They let the person ask questions. They ask very leading questions. I am not sure anybody listens to the answers. Then they have to answer a whole bunch of questions. I am not sure anybody reads the answers to those questions, and if they do, any time you read something, there can be a certain bias that is built into it. I am sorry that is happening to Cabinet after Cabinet after Cabinet position.

Traditionally, a President has gotten the Cabinet that he wanted, often in the first week that he was in. Some of them got it on the first day they were in.

This is a key position for the President. But we have to remember that he doesn't get to make any final decisions. He gets to recommend to the President and make a presentation to the President on what there ought to be, and then the President presents a budget.

Looking back over the last 8 years, we have voted on the President's budget. For 7 years, the President got zero votes. That means his budget did not go into place. In the eighth year, he got one vote. I am hoping that Representative Mulvaney can do a considerably better job than that in outlining what our needs are, presenting it to the President, and getting some agreement so that we can get this country on a plan to where we can quit increasing the $20 trillion debt burden which faces us because of the 8 years of anemic economic and policy growth we have had.

With unprecedented attempts to delay the new Cabinet, Senate Democrats have ensured the President has been without an OMB Director longer than any other President in the past 40 years. The reason I use 40 years is that is as long as that position has been in place.

According to Senate records, from President Jimmy Carter to President Obama, the longest it ever took to approve a first budget director for new Presidents was 1 week--1 week. We are now in week 4 and with little movement. As Majority Leader McConnell said last week, this is the slowest time for a new Cabinet to be up and running since President George Washington--and that was last week that he said that.

It is vital we fill this position. I am hopeful Mr. Mulvaney and the OMB will ensure that the taxes of hard-working Americans sent to Washington are spent in the most effective and efficient way. The Federal Government has not been currently focused on making sure hard- working taxpayers get the best deal for their money. A new OMB Director focused on responsible budgeting can help ensure the duplication of government programs and agencies is discovered and it is addressed. This will help the Federal Government to be more accountable and more effective.

I remember walking over to the inauguration next to the new Senator from Maryland, who talked to me about Mulvaney and said that he was kind of impressed that the two of them had agreed on some budgetary principles. That was a bit of a shock to me.

The Government Accountability Office every year outlines tens of billions of dollars in savings that can be achieved through various efficiency measures. OMB can play an important role in ensuring that spending programs don't duplicate each other. That is what Mulvaney is excited about. Additionally, reforming and consolidating these programs can ensure they focus on real needs and be managed with an eye toward real results.

Several years ago, Congress passed a law requiring the administration to list all Federal programs on a central governmentwide website, along with related budget and performance information, maybe saying how many people work there and how many customers they serve. Unfortunately, when the program lists were put online, GAO reviewed the information and discovered that the inventory, in their own words, was ``not a useful tool for decisionmaking.'' That has to change. Mulvaney can change that. Even if the government can't answer that question, we can find strong evidence that the numbers are on the rise, and Mr. Mulvaney will be able to play a crucial role in taming the unchecked growth of the Federal Government.

To conclude, I have full faith in Representative Mulvaney. That is why I am asking you today to take my word for his capability. I do take my word very seriously. Please support Representative Mulvaney for this important position and get this position onboard so we can do the work that we are supposed to do--one of which is to get a budget from the President by today. That is not going to be possible because he doesn't have anybody to do the budget yet. Then, we can get on with the business of this country. We have been working on some bipartisan budget processes that we can do. We will get that done, too, with his help, with the President's help, and with help from both sides of the aisle. We badly need it.

I ask for support for Representative Mulvaney.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today as the Senate considers the nomination of Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina to be the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. That is OMB. We are long overdue in confirming Mr. Mulvaney to this key post because our Nation has so many pressing budgetary issues requiring the attention of this new administration. First among them is the staggering $20 trillion debt burden we are now faced with after 8 years of anemic economic policy and growth--and growing at the rate of half a trillion dollars a year. Confirming an OMB Director we can work with will put America on a more responsible fiscal path.

With their unprecedented attempts to delay the new Cabinet, Senate Democrats have ensured that the President has now been without an OMB Director longer than any other President in the past 40 years. That is how long the Budget Act has been in place. According to Senate records, from President Jimmy Carter to President Obama, the longest it has ever taken to approve a first budget director for a new President was 1 week--1 week. We are now in week 4, with little or no movement. As Majority Leader McConnell said last week, this is the slowest time for a new Cabinet to be up and running since President George Washington-- and that was last week. It is even slower than that, and we are still not done.

It is vital that we fill this position as soon as possible because the Director of the Office of Management and Budget will help set the President's budget priorities and play an important role in working with Congress on setting the appropriate spending levels for the Nation. This position is crucial to helping the Federal Government function in what is shaping up to be a very challenging fiscal environment that requires all of our attention.

Some may wonder why Democrats are opposed to Mr. Mulvaney. It could be because he has been a vigilant budget hawk during his 6 years in Congress, focused on the question of how we ultimately stop the Federal Government from overspending while continuing to fund the country's core priorities and responsibilities. They could be worried that the White House Budget Director will be a prominent voice, arguing for fiscal restraint, for responsible budgets, and for honest budgeting that avoids the use of gimmicks, such as emergency funding designations for nonemergencies.

I am hopeful Mr. Mulvaney and the OMB will ensure the taxes the hard- working Americans send to Washington are spent in the most efficient and effective way. The Federal Government has not been currently focused on making sure hard-working taxpayers get the best deal for their money. A new OMB Director focused on responsible budgeting can help ensure that when duplication in government programs and agencies is discovered, it is addressed. This will help make the Federal Government more accountable and effective.

The Government Accountability Office, GAO, every year outlines tens of billions of dollars in savings that can be achieved through various efficiency measures. OMB can play an important role in ensuring that spending programs do not duplicate each other while protecting hard- working taxpayers. Additionally, reforming and consolidating these programs can ensure that they focus on real needs and be managed with an eye on real results.

The Federal Government has grown so large and so complex that no one seems to know how many Federal programs exist. Even the executive branch can't tell us how many programs it administers. I have directed a lot of questions to the past administration, trying to find out exactly that. Of course, I would like to not only know how many programs they administer, I would like to know how many dollars are involved, I would like to know how many people it employs and how many customers they serve. There ought to be some kind of relationship there that means we are making a difference, but nobody is looking at it.

Several years ago, Congress even passed a law requiring the administration to publish a list of all Federal programs on a central governmentwide website, along with related budget and performance information--some of what I was just talking about. Unfortunately, when the program lists were put online, GAO reviewed the information and discovered that the inventory, in their words--listen to this carefully--was ``not a useful tool for decision making.'' What were they afraid of? But even if the government can't answer that question, we can find strong evidence that the number is on the rise, and Mr. Mulvaney will be able to play a crucial role in taming the unchecked growth of the Federal Government.

I also look forward to working with him on the urgent need to reform the broken budget process, which has contributed to the budgetary stalemate and recurrent continuing resolutions to which Congress now routinely resorts in order to postpone hard decisions about spending and debt, which delays agencies from being able to plan.

There is an urgent need for important reforms to the process, such as implementing biennial budgeting so they can plan 2 years at a time, and the overhaul of outdated budget accounting concepts that have outlived their usefulness. Ultimately, my goal is to have Congress work with this new administration to produce comprehensive and lasting budget reform that can put our Nation on a better fiscal path. The Budget Committee has been working on that for a year in a very bipartisan way. It is time for us to put some of those into place.

Despite its significance, the preparation of the President's annual budget submission is only one of the responsibilities of OMB. As an entity within the Executive Office of the President, OMB has numerous governmentwide management responsibilities, in addition to budgeting and spending, that

concern various activities carried out by Federal agencies. These include agency rulemaking, agency contracting, agency grants management, agency financial management, information technology, program assessment, personnel policy, property management. We don't even have a list of what property we have, let alone when it is probably going to outlive its usefulness and when it needs to be replaced. That would be capital budgeting. I hope we can do that at some point.

It is for these reasons and more that I encourage the Senate to exercise its constitutional duties to provide their advice and consent on this key Cabinet-level position and confirm Representative Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

I have talked to him extensively. I have known him for a long time, and I know he will do a spectacular job with this at providing good advice to the President so we can do whatever we can do and bring as many people together in meeting the responsibilities of this government. I hope the people will join me in support of this outstanding nominee.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to talk about a couple of my friends. I want to say a few words and praise President Trump's nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States.

I first met Judge Gorsuch several years ago when I met with several circuit court judges for a dinner. He was and has been impressive. Judge Gorsuch is an admirable choice to be America's next Supreme Court Justice. His many years of dedication to the law and service to America's judicial system clearly qualify him to serve on America's highest Court.

His work itself speaks highly of his understanding of the Constitution and the values that we, as Americans, hold dear. Some of the first signs Judge Gorsuch would be a great jurist happened just around the corner from here in Washington, DC, where he won a national debate championship in high school.

He attended college at Columbia University and received a scholarship to attend Harvard Law School. As a new lawyer, he was back here in Washington learning from some of the best jurists in America. He performed clerkships first to the U.S. Supreme Court of Appeals for the DC district court and later for Justice Byron White and Anthony Kennedy at the U.S. Supreme Court.

After working in private practice and at the Department of Justice, in 2006, President George W. Bush nominated Judge Gorsuch to serve as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit--that is my circuit. The Senate confirmed him by voice vote. Let me say that again. In 2006, this body was so confident about Neil Gorsuch, his character and his qualifications to serve as a Federal judge--yes, a circuit court judge--that he was confirmed without anyone even asking for a recorded vote. I consider that unanimous.

On the bench of the busy Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch has proven he takes seriously his duty to uphold the Constitution. He is known for his legal opinions that stridently defend our

most fundamental constitutional rights and for writing those opinions in a way that is engaging and easy to understand.

He knows that his work as a judge is about serving this institution, not his personal preferences. As he said recently at the White House, shortly after his nomination was announced by President Trump, ``A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands.''

I love that quote.

As a uniquely exceptional scholar and respected jurist, not to mention a fellow westerner and avid outdoorsman who shares my love of fly fishing, he is the kind of man I trust to serve America on the highest Court of the land.

I have met Judge Gorsuch, and he has a lot of support from folks in Wyoming, in the Wyoming legal community, and from both parties. I got calls from people of both parties saying he is the one we want to put up. I know and I trust those people, and I know and trust Judge Gorsuch, and I value those people's opinions. I believe he has a good understanding of the legal issues that matter to people in my home State.

I would be remiss if I didn't state my disappointment in all the unproductive distraction about this pick by activists bent on politicizing the judicial nomination process. If their rhetoric and antics in the last days and weeks have told us anything, it is that no matter who President Trump nominated to fill the spot on the Supreme Court, they would have objected--no matter how learned, how objective, or how many hundreds of hours a nominee had already spent on the bench.

In November, millions of people went to the polls and rejected this kind of tired partisan bickering when they voted for a change in Washington. Those same voters went to the polls knowing that there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court and that whoever became the next President would choose the nominee.

Mr. President, among our most important duties, as Members of this body, is carefully vetting all nominees who come before us. Never is that responsibility so stark and so substantial as when our Nation faces a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

I believe Judge Neil Gorsuch is up to the solemn and mighty task of serving as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I look forward to a timely and fair confirmation process focused on Judge Gorsuch's qualifications.

Now I want to talk a little bit about my other friend. I rise in support of President Trump's nominee to serve as the next Attorney General of the United States. That is my good friend and colleague Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Senator Sessions is an admirable and appropriate choice to be America's next Attorney General. His many years of legal practice, his service as a U.S. attorney, and as Alabama's attorney general, and 20 years of legislative service in the U.S. Senate have prepared him well to lead America's Department of Justice. His work itself speaks highly of his understanding of the Constitution, of his respect for the law, and of his reverence for the values that we as Americans hold dear. Jeff Sessions is qualified to be the next U.S. Attorney General because he spent decades studying and practicing the law.

He grew up in a small town in Alabama and worked his way through college before studying law at the University of Alabama. Senator Sessions began his law practice at a small firm, where he worked on cases involving probate matters, domestic relations, criminal defense, real estate, wills, and civil litigation--what a combination.

He then worked as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Alabama from 1975 to 1977. In that position, he handled a variety of cases at the trial level, including those related to wrongful death, gun violations, forgeries, bank robberies, drugs, and enforcing criminal penalties for pollution.

I am not an attorney myself, but I understand those are exactly the kinds of cases that teach foundational legal skills to a young attorney--managing a docket that may include dozens of cases at any one time; working long hours to track down key evidence and witnesses; developing relationships with investigators and closely advising them to ensure relevant and admissible evidence is gathered lawfully; giving up nights and weekends to prepare witnesses, motions, and arguments for trial to get a case across the finish line; and conferring with victims to assure they are afforded the rights guaranteed to them by law.

That kind of hard work and legal training paid off in 1981, when Senator Sessions was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to serve as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. For the next 12 years Jeff Sessions represented Federal agencies in legal controversies, prosecuted criminal cases, collected debts owed to the government, and defended the civil rights of U.S. citizens. He did this while also serving his country in the U.S. Army Reserve from 1973 to 1986. He worked as a transportation officer and later as a military attorney, where the Army no doubt benefited greatly from his years of civilian legal training and practice.

In 1995, Senator Sessions was elected attorney general for the State of Alabama, and he served for 2 years as the State's chief legal officer. Two years later he was elected to the U.S. Senate.

I was first elected to the Senate in that same year, and Jeff Sessions has been my friend ever since. But I personally know the man, not just the Senator, and I believe him to be a caring person who wants justice for people and has compassion for people, no matter their backgrounds.

During his 20 years in the Senate, Jeff Sessions has worked on many tough legislative issues that further qualify him to serve as Attorney General. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he has fought for the confirmation of judges committed to following the law. Consistent with his experience as a prosecutor, he has led successful legislative efforts to improve law and order, many times working with his colleagues across the aisle. He worked with another of my good friends, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, on legislation to reduce sexual assaults in prisons. He worked with Senator Durbin to pass legislation in 2010 to bring fairness to Federal drug sentencing and provide tougher penalties to repeat drug traffickers.

But his efforts haven't been limited to the Judiciary Committee. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he has been a strong advocate for America's military and for those who serve in it. In 2006, he worked with Senator Lieberman to pass a law increasing death benefits for family members of fallen combat personnel and to increase Servicemembers Group Life Insurance benefits.

He has worked to restrain the growth of Federal spending and rebalance Federal funding for HIV/AIDS treatment through the Ryan White CARE Act. Those are just a few of his many legislative accomplishments as a U.S. Senator.

Jeff Sessions is a well-educated attorney, an accomplished prosecutor, and a skilled legislator. But I also believe his character, work ethic, and temperament make him well-suited to serve as the chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government.

As I mentioned, he has been my friend and colleague for over 20 years. So I am proud to personally attest to this. He is a man who is guided by his principles. He is very active in his family's church back in Mobile and in the entire Methodist community of Alabama. He and his wife Mary have raised three wonderful children who have given them ten grandchildren.

I believe Senator Sessions has the experience, character, and drive to be a fantastic Attorney General. If confirmed, he is committed to strengthening partnerships between Federal and local law enforcement officers to fight crime, and, specifically, to take out drug cartels and criminal gangs. He has vowed to prosecute criminals who use guns in committing crimes. And he will prosecute individuals who repeatedly violate America's immigration laws.

In November millions of voters went to the polls and voted for change. I believe the priorities Senator Sessions will pursue if confirmed as Attorney General are shared by those voters. I would note the many organizations and individuals who have endorsed his nomination, including the Fraternal Order

of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and 25 State attorneys general. These are people at the frontlines of law enforcement, and I think they know what it takes to make a great Attorney General.

Among our most important duties as Members of this body is to carefully vet all nominees that come before us. We have before us an opportunity to support the nomination of a man of high moral character, whose training, education, and professional experience make him extremely well-qualified to serve our country. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as our next U.S. Attorney General.

I yield the floor.

It is always disturbing to sit in this Chamber and listen to some of the speeches. I am wondering if even a saint could get approved without a filibuster in this body.

Mr. President, section 2001 of S. Con. Res. 3, the concurrent resolution on the budget Fiscal Year 2017, directs the Committees on Finance and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions to report changes in laws within their respective jurisdictions to reduce the on-budget deficit by not less than $1 billion each for the total of fiscal years 2017 through 2026. Those committees were instructed to submit their recommendations to the Committee on the Budget no later than January 27, 2017.

For the information of colleagues, the reporting deadline has passed, and the Budget Committee has not received reconciliation recommendations from either committee. While committees have not complied with the deadline, the Senate retains the ability to utilize the instructions contained in section 2001 of S. Con. Res. 3.

Mr. President, S. Con. Res. 3, the fiscal year 2017 congressional budget resolution, included an instruction to the chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget to file enforceable levels in the Senate in the event the budget was agreed to without the need to appoint a committee of conference on the measure. On Thursday, January 12, 2017, the Senate passed the budget by a vote of 51-48. On Friday, January 13, 2017, the House of Representatives passed the budget without changes on a vote of 227-198. As such, today I wish to submit the required filing found in the resolution.

Specifically, section 4001 of the fiscal year 2017 congressional budget resolution requires the chairman to file: No. 1, an allocation for fiscal year 2017 for the Committee on Appropriations; and No. 2, an allocation for fiscal years 2017, 2017 through 2021, and 2017 through 2026 for committees other than the Committee on Appropriations.

The figures included in this filing are consistent with the spending limits set forth in the Budget Control Act of 2011, as amended by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, and the levels included in S. Con. Res. 3.

For purposes of enforcing the Senate's pay-as-you-go rule, which is found in section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the fiscal year 2008 congressional budget resolution, I am resetting the Senate's scorecard to zero for all fiscal years.

All years in the accompanying tables are fiscal years.

I ask unanimous consent that the tables detailing enforcement in the Senate be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, over the past few days, we have been listening to the health care horror stories from across the country, such as families earning an annual income of $50,000 who opted for high-deductible coverage and are facing up to $6,000 or, in one case, $10,000 of out-of-pocket costs before their coverage even begins. That is not affordable insurance.

Nearly 7 years after the enactment of ObamaCare and 3 years into implementation, one thing is crystal clear: ObamaCare has failed, but Republicans are working to fix the damage. Over the past several years, it is clear that this law is simply unworkable for millions of hard- working Americans. Insurance markets are collapsing, premiums are soaring, and health care choices are disappearing, but the answer isn't to ignore the problem. With ObamaCare getting worse by the day, it is time for us to act. The repeal resolution we are debating this week promises relief from ObamaCare and provides the tools necessary to immediately repeal this failed law while ensuring a stable transition period to a patient-centered health care system that gives Americans access to quality, affordable care. The resolution includes instructions to authorizing committees so that repeal legislation can move through a fast track process and can pass with a simple majority in the House and Senate. These instructions to committees are provided to allow immediate action on repeal with the intent of sending legislation to the new President's desk as soon as possible.

Headlines from across the Nation highlight the urgent call to action. The New York Times says: ``Obamacare Premiums Set to Rise Even for Savvy Shoppers.'' The Wall Street Journal says: ``Insurers Move to Limit Options in Health-Care Exchange Plans.'' The Baltimore Sun says: ``Marylanders face hefty rate increases for ObamaCare.'' The Omaha World Herald says: ``Health insurance rate increases may have some Nebraskans in sticker shock.'' The Miami Herald says: ``Florida's ObamaCare premiums to rise average 19 percent in 2017, the State says.'' And the Bergen County Record says: ``New Jersey left with just two ObamaCare health providers for 2017.''

My own State of Wyoming is down to one insurer in the individual market, both on and off the exchange. That is a national scandal. We have heard from people who talked about counties where there are no insurers. We have heard people talk about the costs they have both for the premiums and the deductibles. And just talking about the premiums, in New Mexico they had some counties where the average cost of a house payment is less than the monthly cost of their health care--much less, about 50 percent less in one instance.

It is also important to look at the facts surrounding ObamaCare. Some on the other side of the aisle like to focus on how many people are insured under the law, but let's look at how many are not insured. Almost 28 million Americans remain without insurance under ObamaCare. Even with insurance, many still can't afford the care due to surging deductibles. If you can't afford the deductible, you really don't have insurance. If you can't afford the insurance, you don't have insurance. And it isn't the insurance that is important; it is the availability of providers that can take care of you. Most of the newly insured gained coverage only through a flawed Medicaid program that is providing inferior quality and threatening to bankrupt States across the Nation.

According to research from the architect of ObamaCare, Jonathan Gruber--he explicitly said that most of the newly enrolled beneficiaries were actually eligible for Medicaid before ObamaCare. In fact, his research showed that two-thirds of new people signing up for Medicaid were brought into the program, not through ObamaCare but by increased Medicaid advertising.

As America soon discovered, the President and congressional Democrats focused exclusively on coverage and mandates that were handed down from Washington instead of patient-centered reforms. Coverage was the silver bullet for them because coverage equaled health care. They forgot a key detail though: The cost of the plans that were mandated made it nearly impossible for many to pay for the insurance or, if they had coverage, to pay for care with the sky-high deductibles. I know that some people on my staff had health savings accounts that gave them catastrophic coverage. They didn't have to worry about going bankrupt over health care. Their deductibles were lower than the ones that we have with this health care.

Focusing on and highlighting the number of people now enrolled in ObamaCare doesn't translate into anything more than phantom insurance, which, for users plagued by inadequate coverage, is coupled with huge out-of-pocket costs. We are seeing families now having to forgo medical care, not because they don't have insurance but because it is simply too expensive to go to the doctor with their ObamaCare health plan.

Normally I would say that you get what you pay for. But with ObamaCare, you seem to just pay without getting much at all. It is kind of like buying a bus ticket, but when you show up for the trip, they tell you that to get a seat, you are going to have to spend a little bit more, and then you have to chip in for the gas.

For years, Republicans have pledged to repeal this disastrous law. Passing this resolution is just the first step in keeping that promise, clearing the way for consideration of repeal legislation that will be signed into law by the new President. While providing immediate relief from ObamaCare, Republicans will ensure it is a stable transition in which those with insurance will not lose access to health care coverage. This will allow the Nation to move to a patient-centered health care system that gives hard-working Americans access to quality, affordable care. The goal is a more modern health care system where there is innovation to improve the health of all Americans, where insurers are offered new and affordable options, and where families have a more direct say over their own health care decisions.

Unwinding partisan gridlock to make these changes will not be easy. As I noted in my earlier remarks, our Nation has made great strides in improving the quality of life for all Americans, but these transforming changes are always forged in the spirit of bipartisan compromise and cooperation. We still need health care reform, but it has to be done the right way. Passing this resolution will start building a bridge from ObamaCare's broken promises to better care for each and every American.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, while we are waiting for the unanimous consent agreement that will kick off the evening, I feel compelled to make a couple of comments.

I don't want people to be confused as the evening goes on. This is not the bill that repeals ObamaCare. This is the bill that sets up the process that will repeal ObamaCare. This is a preliminary step that is necessary in order to do what everybody is claiming will be done tonight, and that is not accurate.

So we will hear a bunch of things that people are concerned about, but this bill in it has budget numbers. The budget numbers reflect where we are--not where we would like to be and not where we have been. They are just the numbers of where we are. Then, in the resolution, there is a requirement that the Finance Committee save $1 billion, and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee save $1 billion, and they get to do that with some privileged legislation, as long as we keep it privileged. There will be a number of attempts tonight to see if they can get rid of the privilege by using corrosive or nongermane amendments. Consequently, we will have to vote down some of those amendments. It might sound logical, and it is because they are not in the bill.

I guess we are still waiting for the unanimous consent agreement so at this point I will yield the floor.

Mr. President, for some additional information of what is happening, we are organizing lists of what tranche the votes will be in. Just because they are not listed in this first group, doesn't mean they are not going to be considered. In fact, under a budget resolution, we have what is called a vote-arama. Actually, any amendment can be turned in until we finish voting. Unlike other activity that we usually have where we know what votes there will be well in advance, this is a special exercise and it is handled a little differently and it is a lot more confusing.

We will begin in a while. We will begin processing these amendments one at a time. For debate, just so people know for sure which amendment we are on, the proponent for the amendment will get 1 minute and the opponent for that amendment will get 1 minute. At the end of those 2 minutes, we will vote. The first vote is supposed to take 15 minutes. The Senate is seldom held to 15 minutes. After that, we often go to 10- minute votes, which in the Senate usually only takes about 30 minutes.

That is the way we do it here. We make sure everybody gets their chance to vote. We hope people will be around so they can get here punctually and cast their vote. We think the amount of time from 10 minutes can be reduced if people are interested in reducing the amount of time to do them.

I got the signal that we now have the final list.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up the following amendments and have them reported en bloc: Manchin, No. 64; Nelson, No. 13; Baldwin, No. 81; Tester, No. 104; Klobuchar, No. 172; Casey, No. 61; King, No. 60; Menendez, No. 83; Gillibrand, No. 82; Manchin, No. 63; and Stabenow, No. 94.

You will see, in spite of that listing, we are going to have some additional consent needed here.

I ask unanimous consent that those be on the list for now.

I further ask unanimous consent that at 6:15 p.m., all time be yielded back and the Senate vote on the amendments in the order listed, except for the following amendments, which will be voted on first: Nelson, No. 13; King, No. 60; a Barrasso side-by-side amendment, the text of which is at the desk; Manchin, No. 64; that there be no second- degree amendments in order to these four amendments prior to the votes; finally, that there be 2 minutes, equally divided between the managers or their designees, prior to each vote and that all votes after the first in this series be 10 minutes in length.

Klobuchar, No. 172?

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 173 and ask unanimous consent that it be reported by number.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is corrosive to the privilege of the budget resolution. That means that it is outside the scope of what is appropriate for this budget resolution. Any inappropriate amendment could be fatal to the privilege of this resolution, which would destroy our efforts to repeal ObamaCare. In other words, a vote in favor of this amendment is a vote against repealing ObamaCare.

In addition, this amendment is not germane to this budget resolution. This budget resolution is much more focused than a typical budget resolution. The Congressional Budget Act requires that amendments to a budget resolution be germane. Since this amendment does not meet that standard required by budget law, a point of order would lie; as such, I raise a point of order under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, this amendment is outside of the scope of what is appropriate for this budget resolution. It is corrosive to the privilege of the budget. Any inappropriate amendment could be fatal to the privilege of this resolution, which would destroy our efforts to repeal ObamaCare. In other words, a vote in favor of this amendment is a vote against repealing ObamaCare.

In addition, this amendment is not germane to this budget resolution. This budget resolution is much more focused than a typical budget resolution.

The Congressional Budget Act requires that amendments to a budget resolution be germane. Since this amendment does not meet the standard required by law, a point of order would lie; as such, I raise a point of order under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following disposition of the Manchin amendment No. 64, the Senate vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect; further, that there be no second-degree amendments in order to the amendments listed; and, finally, that the Heller amendment No. 167 and the Flake amendment No. 176 be called up and reported by number en bloc.

Mr. President, this amendment is not germane to this budget resolution. This budget resolution is focused on defeating ObamaCare. So anything other than that is outside of the scope of the repeal resolution.

The Congressional Budget Act requires that amendments to a budget resolution be germane. Since this amendment doesn't meet the standard required by budget law, a point of order would lie.

So I am compelled as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to raise a point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, making a clarification that the numbers of the amendments done in the unanimous consent are Heller amendment No. 167, Baldwin amendment No. 81, Flake amendment No. 176, and Tester amendment No. 104.

Mr. President, this amendment is not germane to this budget resolution. The Congressional Budget Act requires that amendments to a budget resolution be germane. Since this amendment does not meet the standard required by budget law, a point of order would lie against it.

I am compelled as chairman of the Committee on the Budget to raise a point of order against this amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the Tester amendment No. 104, the Senate vote in relation to the Casey amendment No. 61 with all of the provisions of the previous order remaining in effect; further, that there be no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment.

Mr. President, I am hoping we can do something for the veterans in a bipartisan way under a bill that Senator Isakson worked on for a long time, but on this amendment, the Congressional Budget Act requires that amendments to a budget resolution be germane. Since this amendment doesn't meet the standard required by budget law, a point of order would lie, so I would raise a point of order against this amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, after the Casey vote, we expect that the next three votes that we are still working to lock in after this vote will be Barrasso No. 181, Hatch No. 179, and Menendez No. 83. We are not asking for a unanimous consent agreement at this point. We just want people to be aware of the paperwork that is being done so that they can be ready for votes on those when we do lock them in.

I didn't ask unanimous consent. I was just announcing, and I assume you are just announcing as well.

Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Act requires that amendments to a budget resolution be germane. Since this amendment does not meet the standard raised by budget law, a point of order would lie. As such, I raise a point of order against this amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the Casey amendment No. 61, the Senate vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect; further, that there be no second-degree amendments in order to the amendments listed. That would be Barrasso No. 181, Hatch No. 179, and Menendez No. 83.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Corker be recognized to offer amendment No. 106 and that the amendment be reported by number. I further ask that there then be 2 minutes of debate on the amendment to be controlled by Senator Corker or his designee, and following the use or yielding back of time, the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I call up Barrasso No. 181 and Hatch No. 179 and ask unanimous consent that they be reported by number.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the Menendez amendment No. 83, the Senate vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect; further, that there be no second-degree amendments in order to the amendments listed: Alexander amendment No. 174, Klobuchar amendment No. 178, Wyden amendment No. 188; finally, I ask unanimous consent that the Klobuchar amendment No. 172 be withdrawn.

Madam President, the Congressional Budget Act requires that amendments to a budget resolution be germane. Since this amendment does not meet the standard required by budget law, a point of order lies against it.

I am compelled, as chairman of the Committee on the Budget, to raise a point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, this discussion will be a little different than any we have had because in a bipartisan way we have been defeating this for at least 14 years. Byron Dorgan used to head it up on that side, and I used to oppose it from this side, but it has always been bipartisan, and that is because we are not sure about the safety of the prescription drugs that come in online.

People who drive over the border and go to a pharmacist are probably getting good drugs there, but we are told that for up to 85 percent of what comes in online, we can't tell what country it came from. So we can specify Canada, but it may be from another country altogether, particularly the Middle East. If we want to assure we have the safety of our drugs, being able to get it online from even Canada doesn't have the kind of assurance we need. We have always asked that the Secretary of Health and Human Services specify that the safety is in place. No one has been willing to do that.

I ask that we vote against this amendment.

Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Act does require that the amendments to the budget resolution be germane. Since this amendment does not meet the standard required by budget law, a point of order would lie. So I raise a point of order against this amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect; further that there be no second-degree amendments in order to the amendments listed: Fischer 184, Gillibrand 82, Hatch 180, Brown 86; I further ask that the pending amendments, aside from these listed, be withdrawn; that no further amendments be in order, and that following disposition of the Brown amendment, the Senate vote on adoption of the resolution, as amended, if amended.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the listed amendments be called up and reported by number.

Sure.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my previous unanimous consent request be vitiated.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect; further, that there be no second-degree amendments in order to the amendments listed: That would be Fischer 184 and Gillibrand 82.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to reinstate my previous unanimous consent which would be: Fischer 184, then Gillibrand 82, Hatch 180, Brown 86; further, that the pending amendments, aside from these listed, be withdrawn, that no further amendments be in order, and that following disposition of the Brown amendment, the Senate vote on adoption of the resolution, as amended, if amended.

I ask unanimous consent that the list of amendments be called up and reported by number.

Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Act requires that amendments to a budget resolution be germane. Since this amendment does not meet the standard required by budget law, a point of order would lie.

So I raise a point of order against this amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Act requires that amendments to a budget resolution be germane. Since this amendment does not meet the standard required by budget law, I raise a point of order against this amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form, prior to the vote on adoption of S. Con. Res. 3.

Mr. President, the repeal resolution we have been debating in the Senate this week will complete the first step toward reducing the Federal Government's role that has prevented Americans from pursuing affordable and accessible health care that meets their needs without emptying their wallets. After we complete our repeal work, the Senate can then vigorously pursue putting the Nation on a more responsible and sustainable fiscal path and address government's out- of-control spending and mammoth national debt when we begin our work on the fiscal year 2018 budget.

This resolution will set the stage for true legislative relief from ObamaCare that Americans have long demanded while ensuring a stable transition in which those with insurance will not lose access to health care coverage. This will allow us to move step-by-step on a new set of reforms, listening carefully to the advice of millions of Americans affected or as Senator Alexander of Tennessee--the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--put it, the ObamaCare bridge is collapsing, and we are sending in a rescue team. We will then build new bridges to better health care, and finally, when these new bridges are finished, we will close the old bridge.

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