Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to speak on the importance of maintaining a strong Food and Drug Administration. Today we approved the user fee reauthorizations for the FDA. We have done the important work of passing these essential user fee agreements out of the committee and have now debated and passed them on the Senate floor.

The HELP Committee is filled with strong personalities. These personalities reflect the passion and diversity of opinion of millions across our nation today. While we may disagree on certain policies, most of us can agree that funding the drug, device, and biologic centers of the FDA is essential.

Our future scientific endeavors require a strong FDA that communicates openly with the industry that it regulates, and this agreement sets up protocols to achieve that goal. A strong FDA also requires clear steps for product review, and only through such deliberative actions can we bring more competition and clarity to our drugs, devices, and biologic products.

I have championed multiple provisions in this bill, but there are two I would like to highlight today. First, there is the counterfeit and diverted drug language. This language makes importation neither harder nor easier. In fact, it doesn't change importation laws at all. Rather, it protects and strengthens the drug supply chain by

simply increasing penalties for criminals that choose to divert drugs into the United States or sell counterfeit drugs.

Current penalties for illegally diverting drugs in the United States change arbitrarily based on the location where the drugs are manufactured. Our bill addresses this disparity by enforcing the same penalties for diverting drugs made outside the United States as for those made inside the United States. To ensure public health and to enhance consumer confidence, it is critical that Congress eliminate these differing penalties for certain types of diversion and counterfeiting.

The second provision I wish to call attention to is a bipartisan proposal from Senators Bennet, Burr, and Casey. These fine Senators have joined together to address how clinical trials are designed early on in their development. By offering guidance on how to include the intended patient population, especially those with rare diseases, drug sponsors can craft trials that generate useful data for health professionals and patients to review.

This bill builds upon the success of other expanded access provisions that put the patient at the heart of the healthcare system. FDA does consummate work when reviewing products for market, but including a wider patient mix, when appropriate, will enable phase I, II, and III trials to be more complex. I strongly believe that accurately portraying the intended patient population in a clinical trial is key to ensuring that drugs are both safe and effective.

I support this bill, but I also feel compelled to speak for a moment on the OPEN ACT. While not included in the package being debated today, the provisions of the Orphan Product Extension Now Accelerating Cures and Treatments Act--a bill I introduced this Congress with Senator Menendez and last Congress with Senator Klobuchar--would promote new therapies for rare diseases.

New therapies are essential to help the nearly 30 million Americans suffering from a rare disease or condition. Because complex rare diseases with small patient populations have limited market potential, there are few economic incentives to develop new drugs targeting those diseases. While there are 7,000 rare diseases that impact millions of Americans, 95 percent of these diseases have no treatment. All too often, misconceptions about the dangers of exclusivities keep bipartisan measures from being introduced. We must remain focused, however, and remember that, each day we delay in getting treatments to the rare disease community, patients and their families suffer.

Drug companies possess considerable scientific knowledge on drugs that have already been approved for common diseases. Some of these drugs could be repurposed for the treatment of rare diseases. Repurposing drugs is faster, less expensive, and generally less risky than traditional drug development.

The OPEN ACT would encourage such repurposing by providing an additional 6 months of market exclusivity to drugs that are repurposed and approved by FDA for a rare disease or condition.

Finding legislative ways help medical innovators treat rare diseases has been among my top priorities for over 30 years, since I first championed the bipartisan, bicameral Orphan rug Act in 1983. The OPEN ACT is a natural next step in expanding that effort to close the gap for rare diseases for which we have yet to develop treatments. In addition to increasing the number of rare disease therapies, this legislation will boost innovation and provide safer options for rare disease patients using drugs off-label. My bill enjoys enormous support with the backing of over 225 rare disease organizations and patient advocacy groups, not to mention overwhelming support from academic medical and research centers.

Although this provision is not in the bill before us, I have had assurances from Chairman Alexander that he will continue working with me and the cosponsors of this bill to see it become law. I have spoken to Ranking Member Murray in the past about it, and I remain optimistic that my colleagues share my concern for the rare disease community and are willing to advance this legislation in the future. I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for their dedication to children and families in need.

I wish to conclude by reminding my colleagues that many of the debates that have led to the bill before us today are the culmination of years of experience. When I led the effort to pass what became Hatch-Waxman, the true impact of that law dwarfed even our loftiest hopes. Hatch-Waxman was a resounding success because Senators and Congressmen worked together to improve our country's situation and reduce barriers to market entry. This bill is vital to continuing that goal, and I am pleased to see where the negotiations have landed.

Mr. President, last week, I joined the Senate majority leader, the Speaker of the House, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the Treasury Secretary, and the Director of the National Economic Council in issuing a joint statement on tax reform.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint statement be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Since the statement's release, critics and naysayers have said quite a bit, some even going so far as to declare their opposition to the statement. That is a little odd, given that the statement is not a bill or a tax plan; it is simply a statement of agreed upon principles for tax reform.

That is not to say it was insignificant. Quite the opposite, in fact. The joint statement is an important development in the overall tax reform effort for several reasons.

For example, over the past several months, the favored tax reform narrative among some in the pundit class has been that Republicans are deeply divided. According to this narrative, Republicans in the Senate, the House, and the administration all have such fundamentally different views on tax reform that it will be impossible for us all to get on the same page.

Some of that was, to use an outdated description, pure poppycock.

When the administration puts out a framework that calls for a 15 percent corporate tax rate while the House blueprint has a 20 percent rate target, that is not really a disagreement. Both sides want to lower the corporate rate significantly, and the general idea in both cases is to reduce the rate as much as is reasonably possible.

Admittedly, there were some key differences of opinion. At the outset of this Congress, with a newly elected Republican President, it was fair to say that the House, Senate, and White House were on different pages when it came to some aspects of tax reform.

However, with last week's release of the joint statement, the leaders in this effort--in both congressional chambers and in the executive branch--have declared that, as of now, we are singing off the same song sheet. There are, of course, details that will need to be worked out, but all parties are in agreement on the key principles and have enough confidence that the process can move forward in Congress without the fear that the House, Senate, or administration will take drastically different approaches in crafting a tax reform package.

That is very significant. I have been working on tax reform for more than 6 years now, and this is the first time that we have had anything approaching this level of unity across the various Chambers and branches of government.

Another significant marker in the joint statement is the agreement that the tax-writing committees will do the lion's share of the work in producing the actual tax reform legislation and that the leaders are committed to moving through regular order, by which I mean committee markup processes prior to floor consideration.

This is key because one of the criticisms I have heard about Republicans' tax reform efforts is that the bill is being drafted behind closed doors I have even been scolded, sometimes pointedly, over why I have not held a Finance Committee hearing on ``the bill,'' even though there is no complete bill in place at this time.

Outside groups, some overtly aligned with the Democrats, have already put forward budget scores for the House

blueprint and the President's tax framework, even though there are not enough specifics in place to score anything yet. Those scores, generated by whatever is in the imagination of the outside groups, and not based on any facts, tell tall tales. They say there will be tax cuts for the rich, big businesses and a parade of horrors. Democrats here in the Senate, as well, have spoken of the horrors of the Republican ``tax plan,'' even though there is not a detailed plan in place. Again, the horrors represent pure fiction.

It is simply not the case that a bill is being drafted behind closed doors. It was never going to be the case. I have stated several times in recent months that I intended to have a robust and transparent process for tax reform in the Senate. The joint statement confirms that both chambers of Congress will take that kind of approach.

The Finance Committee is already hard at work. We have been talking about specific reform proposals for months now, and every member on the majority side of the committee is ready to do the work. More broadly, the committee has been at work in a bipartisan way on tax reform for many years now.

We have a number of great members on the Finance Committee, all of whom--at least on the Republican side--are committed to working toward this effort. I will continue to gather their input with an eye toward crafting a tax reform bill and moving it through the committee this fall. Once again, the committee process is going to be robust; I intend to hold multiple hearings and full markup.

The joint statement also noted that Republican leaders hoped that our Democratic colleagues would be willing to participate in this effort.

That should be no surprise. I have been calling on my Democrat friends to work with us on tax reform for months, even years.

For months now, I have been come to the floor on multiple occasions to ask my Democratic friends to come to the table.

I held a bipartisan hearing on tax reform in the Finance Committee just a few weeks ago, where we heard from experts on both sides of the aisle.

Earlier this week, the committee had another bipartisan hearing, this one on affordable housing. Of course, most of the Federal affordable housing incentives are found in the Tax Code, meaning that issue will undoubtedly be part of the larger discussion.

These hearings are just the latest in very long line of bipartisan, tax-related hearings in the Finance Committee.

So there really shouldn't be any doubt that, when I sign onto a statement that includes a call for bipartisanship, the call is both serious and sincere.

In addition, there is quite a bit of bipartisan agreement over the policy principles noted in joint statement.

As I said here on the floor just a few weeks ago, a number of Democrats--including a number of our Senate colleagues and the two most recent Democratic Presidents--have expressed support for lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate, which is the highest in the industrialized world.

Prominent Democrats, including the distinguished minority leader, have publicly supported reforms to our international tax system in order to make American businesses more competitive and prevent erosion of our tax base.

Both of these concepts are prominently mentioned in our joint statement.

The statement also talks about tax relief for middle-class families and reduced burdens on small businesses. Democrats, last time I checked, were largely in favor of this as well.

So long story short, there is nothing in the statement, either in terms of process or policy, that should discourage a number of Democrats from getting on board with this effort.

Yet, earlier this week, every member of the Senate Democratic Caucus--except three--signed onto a letter they purported to be a call for compromise and bipartisanship. However, if you read the details of the letter, it was really a set of up-front demands peppered in between political attacks.

First and foremost, my colleagues demanded in their letter that Republicans not use budget reconciliation to move a tax reform bill.

That has been a precondition for Democratic involvement in this effort for months now, among other demands unrelated to tax reform, and, as I have said many times, it is preposterous. The demand that Republicans agree upfront to a particular process is really unprecedented and, not to put too fine a point on it, a little nonsensical.

If Democrats are willing to engage in good faith on tax reform, why would they first demand that we ensure their ability to block it from ever even coming to the floor before they would be willing to engage on the substance? The logic is a little dizzying, to say the least.

On top of that, if reconciliation remains on the table, why would that stop Democrats from agreeing on the substance?

Obviously, budget reconciliation gives the majority the tools it needs to move legislation--under specified rules and conditions-- without the threat of a filibuster, but nothing in the rules requires reconciliation to be partisan. In fact, historically speaking, tax bills moved through reconciliation tend to get bipartisan support. For example, the so-called Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003 were passed through reconciliation; yet there were both Republicans and Democrats voting in favor of the package.

Recent history shows that working together on the substance of policy is not precluded by the existence of a reconciliation instruction.

In 2009, with a reconciliation instruction in place, Senate Republicans in the Finance Committee participated in the healthcare reform process, with hearings, roundtables, and bipartisan discussion groups, before we were shut out of the final ObamaCare bill. Republicans did not operate as though there was a prerequisite of no reconciliation before discussion could occur.

In 2013, with a $1 trillion tax-hike reconciliation instruction in place, Senate Republicans in the Finance Committee participated in discussions that produced 10 bipartisan tax option papers; we participated in what was called a blank slate approach to tax reform; and we participated in discussion draft conversations. Republicans did not operate as though there was a prerequisite of no reconciliation before discussion could occur.

Now, our friends on the other side are critical of us when we follow the path they, themselves, took. They are insisting that we do what they would not do when similarly situated. They are not participating on the same constructive basis we did when we were in their place. From their leader on down, they act as if the past does not exist or that we are ignorant of it. Before applying too clever a rhetorical lash to those on this side, my friends on the other side should heed the advice of Lord Byron: ``Keep thy smooth words and juggling homilies for those who know thee not.''

If Democrats will work with us to reach agreement on the substance of tax reform, the process by which it moves through the Senate shouldn't really be a concern. Any implication that the process will necessarily dictate the substance is misleading.

Ideally, the tax reform process would be bipartisan, particularly here in the Senate. That would be the best-case scenario for the effort.

In a perfect world, reconciliation would not be necessary.

For that to happen, the Democrats would have to be willing to engage in a reasonable manner. In my view, opening the discussion with a demand that Republicans unilaterally disarm and commit to not using the tools we have under the rules of the Senate--the very tools that have been used by both sides in the past--smacks of disingenuousness. If they are truly willing to engage constructively on these efforts--and I hope they are--we should begin by talking about the substance, not dealing with process demands.

I hope that what we are seeing is posturing. I hope that my Democratic colleagues will recognize the significance of the unity expressed in last week's joint statement and get on board for what will hopefully be a historic effort.

If they do not, Republicans should be willing to use the tools at our disposal to move tax reform without Democratic support. That would include reconciliation.

The majority leader has indicated that he is willing to go that way. I am willing to go that way as well.

However, to get us to the point, a number of things have to happen, not

the least of which is the passage of budget resolution. For now, I am focusing on the substantive policies and proposals, and I will keep working with my colleagues on the Finance Committee to deliver on the tasks we were charged in the joint statement.

Mr. President, I represent a generation of lawmakers brought up on the principles of bipartisanship and compromise, and I believe these very virtues are the key to my success as a legislator. By putting these principles in practice as chairman of the Finance Committee, I was able to pass more than 40 bills into law during the last Congress, and by working with my friends across the aisle over many decades of public service, I have been able to pass more legislation than anyone alive today.

I draw from these personal experiences to illustrate a simple point: In an era of endless gridlock and increasing polarization, there is no alternative to civility and healthy debate. We would do well to remember this in light of the frustrations we have all felt over the past several months.

The Senate is capable of so much more than it is today. I know because I have seen the Senate at its best, and I have seen the Senate when regular order was the norm, when legislation was debated in committee, and when Members worked constructively with one another for the good of the country. I have seen the Senate when it truly lived up to its reputation as the world's greatest deliberative body.

I believe we can again see this body at its best, but restoring the Senate to its proper function requires real change on all sides. It begins by recognizing that all of us here, Democrats and Republicans alike, are to some extent culpable for the current dysfunction. If we want to break free of the current gridlock and if we want to show the American people we are serious about legislating, then we have to be honest with ourselves, and we have to recognize that laying all the blame on the other side is as counterproductive as it is disingenuous.

Most importantly, we must be willing to work in good faith with Members of the opposite party. All too often, we miss the opportunity to effect meaningful change by hiding behind partisan differences. We must take the opposite course by renewing our efforts to reach across the aisle to overcome division and forge consensus. There is no better template for effective, bipartisan legislating.

This is the model I have followed for decades for the betterment of Utah and the Nation, and it is the model I have followed most recently in working with my dear friend Senator Coons to introduce the International Communications Privacy Act, or what we affectionately refer to as ICPA.

ICPA is more than just a commonsense proposal that updates law enforcement for the modern age; it is a symbol of what our two parties can accomplish when we lay aside petty differences and come together for the good of our Nation. In crafting this proposal, Senator Coons and I took great pains to strengthen international data privacy protections while also enhancing law enforcement's ability to access data across borders.

This issue has long been a priority of mine. I have spoken about it at length both here on the Senate floor and in other venues and have introduced legislation on the subject over multiple Congresses. Most recently, I came to the Senate floor to explain how the rise of cloud and remote network computing has transformed the way we store data and to describe the implications of that transformation for our data privacy laws.

Until relatively recently, most electronic data was housed in personal computers or on servers located in offices or homes. This meant that in order to access data, a person could simply go to the relevant location and retrieve it. That is no longer the case. Nowadays, much of our data is stored not on home or office computers but in the cloud--a network of remote servers spread throughout the world that allows us to access data from literally anywhere. Data pertaining to a single individual or even to a single document may be stored at multiple sites spread across countries or even continents.

This has profound implications for data privacy. To begin with, our privacy laws require government officials to obtain a warrant before they can access many types of electronic communications. Warrants, however, traditionally have stopped at the warrant's edge. This means that if a law enforcement agent is investigating a crime here in the United States but a key piece of information is stored on a remote server outside the United States, the agent may have significant difficulty obtaining the information. Without a warrant or the ability to get a warrant, the agent may have to use diplomatic channels to obtain the information--a process that can be extremely slow and cumbersome.

Our privacy laws also prohibit disclosure to foreign entities. This means that when a foreign government is investigating a crime within its borders and a key piece of information is stored in the United States, the foreign government must likewise work through diplomatic channels to obtain the information.

The growing prevalence of cloud and remote network computing has put law enforcement into increasing conflict with these sorts of restrictions. Crime knows no borders. A child pornographer in Bangalore may post photos of an American victim on a British server which can be accessed worldwide. A U.S. official investigating the crime may need information stored on the British server in order to track down the culprit. If the server was in the United States, the official could simply issue a warrant. But that tool isn't available in this scenario because the server is overseas.

Moreover, the United Kingdom may have a statute, similar to our own law, that prohibits British service providers from disclosing communications to foreign entities. Diplomatic channels exist for sharing such data, but these channels are exceptionally slow and can take months or even years to process requests. In the meantime, crimes go unpunished and perpetrators disappear.

This state of affairs is simply not tenable. We cannot allow outdated laws to hamstring law enforcement efforts in this way. At the same time, we must adequately protect Americans' privacy against unwarranted government intrusion.

Some have suggested that the answer is to simply extend the reach of U.S. warrants worldwide. This, however, is not a viable solution as foreign disclosure laws can and do conflict with U.S. laws. Extending the reach of U.S. warrants without reasonable limits would thus place service providers in the impossible position of having to choose which country's laws to violate--ours or the foreign jurisdiction's.

What we need is a sensible regime with clear rules that determine access based on factors that matter to the person whose data is being sought. At the same time, we need to take proper account of the laws and interests of other countries, especially our allies.

We ought to avoid, wherever possible, trampling on other nations' sovereignty or ignoring their own citizens' legitimate claims to privacy. Accordingly, ICPA sets clear rules for when and how U.S. law enforcement can access electronic data based on the location and nationality of the person whose data is being sought.

Here is what the bill says:

If a person is a U.S. national or is located in the United States, law enforcement may compel disclosure, regardless of where the data is stored, provided the data is accessible from a U.S. computer and law enforcement uses proper criminal process.

If a person is not a U.S. national, however, and is not located in the United States, then different rules apply. These rules are founded on three principles: respect, comity, and reciprocity.

First, respect. If U.S. law enforcement wishes to access data belonging to a non-U.S. national located outside the United States, then U.S. law enforcement must first notify the person's country of citizenship and provide that country an opportunity to object. This shows respect to the other country and gives it an opportunity to assert the privacy rights of its citizen.

Second, comity. If, after receiving notice, the other country lodges an objection, a U.S. court undertakes a comity analysis to determine whose interests should rightly prevail--the U.S. interests in obtaining the data or the foreign interests in safeguarding the privacy of its citizen. As a part of this analysis, the court considers such factors as the location of the crime, the seriousness of the crime, the importance of the data to the investigation, and the possibility of accessing the data through other means.

Third, reciprocity. In order to receive notice and an opportunity to object, the other country must provide reciprocal rights to the United States. This ensures that the U.S. provides its own citizens an equal or greater level of protection against foreign requests for data. It also offers incentives to foreign governments to properly safeguard the data of U.S. citizens within their borders.

Up to this point, I have been focusing on requests by U.S. law enforcement for data stored outside the United States, but there is another side to the problem, and that is what happens when foreign law enforcement requests data stored inside the United States.

As I have mentioned, our privacy laws prohibit disclosure to foreign entities. Suppose a British subject committed a crime in Britain but data relevant to the investigation is stored in the United States. Even if British law provides for extraterritorial process, a UK official investigating the crime will be unable to obtain the data because U.S. law prevents disclosure to foreign officials. As with U.S. requests for data in other countries, diplomatic channels exist for sharing such data, but these channels are slow and extremely cumbersome.

Accordingly, for the past several months, I have been working with Senator Graham and others to find a solution for this second part of the problem. Senator Graham, together with Senator Whitehouse, convened a hearing in May of this year that I believe highlighted the need for action. I have also met with Ambassadors and other high-ranking foreign officials who have impressed upon me the challenges they are facing under existing U.S. law.

I think we need to address this second side of the problem--foreign requests for data in the United States--as well. We need to address it in conjunction with the first side--U.S. requests for data in other countries.

It will not do to give foreign authorities readier access to data stored in the United States without likewise clarifying U.S. law enforcement's ability to obtain data stored abroad. Similarly, it is inconceivable to me that we would open our doors to foreign law enforcement requests while telling U.S. law enforcement that data in other countries is off-limits. Surely, we should not prefer foreign criminal investigations over domestic ones.

I believe these two issues--ICPA and the bilateral United States- United Kingdom agreement--are inextricably linked. I have worked in good faith with Senator Graham and with Senator Whitehouse to find a path forward on these issues. It is my firm belief that we need to move these two issues together. Everyone has a vested interest in privacy, and everyone has a vested interest in bringing criminals to justice. We are going to work together on this.

In closing, I would emphasize one additional point. The question of whether, when, and under what circumstances the United States should authorize law enforcement access to data stored abroad is a question for Congress. There have been suggestions in some corridors that this is a question for the courts to decide. I emphatically reject that question. This is a policy question for Congress.

We should not defer to the courts' interpretation of a statute that was passed 30 years ago with no thought or comprehension of the situation we face today. Subject to constitutional constraints, it is Congress's job to set the bounds of government's investigatory powers. We decide what government officials can and cannot do. We should not pass the buck to the judiciary merely because this is a complicated issue. We shouldn't do that.

The International Communications Privacy Act provides critical guidance to law enforcement while respecting the laws and interests of our allies. It brings a set of simple, straightforward rules to a chaotic area of the law and creates an example for other countries to follow. It is a balanced approach and a smart approach, and it deserves this body's full-throated support.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to once again remind my Senate colleagues what is at stake with the procedural vote that took place today.

The Senate voted on the motion to proceed to the House-passed budget reconciliation bill. The Senate will now start working in earnest to consider and, hopefully, pass legislation that would repeal and replace ObamaCare with a 2-year transition period, or other, specific replacement policies.

That is a complicated undertaking to say the least. However, the first vote on the motion to proceed was relatively simple. While pundits and talking heads have already analyzed this particular vote to death, all of the talk boils down to a single question: Do Republicans want to repeal and replace ObamaCare?

I don't want to belittle or discredit the concerns some of my colleagues have raised about the various legislative proposals that are out there. However, we won't be voting on any particular policy or proposal.

On the contrary, the vote was simply to determine whether the Senate is actually going to consider the budget reconciliation bill. Members were not voting for or against any particular healthcare proposal; they were simply voting on whether the Senate will actually debate any such measure.

That being the case, the vote was a simple one. Anyone who supports the larger effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare should be willing to at least debate the various proposals that have been put forward.

That is the very definition of a no-brainer.

The final pieces of ObamaCare were signed into law in March 2010, more than 7 years ago. Since then, the law has been one of the key focal points of legislative and political debate and discourse nationwide. Very few topics in our Nation's history have been the subject of more public debate and fierce disagreement.

After all this time, one thing is very clear: ObamaCare has failed the American people.

The vast majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the healthcare status quo. These people want answers from Congress that will bring down their healthcare costs, reduce their tax burdens, and put them back in charge of their own healthcare. For more than 7 years now, virtually every Republican in Congress has been promising to provide those solutions.

We have never been closer to making good on those promises than we are right now with a Republican President ready to take action to support congressional efforts to repeal and replace this unworkable law.

Make no mistake, none of the major proposals that have been put forward are perfect. In fact, in my personal view, they are all far from perfect. But, at the end of the day, any bill--particularly a bill as wide and sweeping as one that addresses a large portion of our healthcare system--that is ``perfect'' in the eyes of one Senator is likely fatally flawed in the eyes of 99 others.

Translation: When it comes to legislating successfully, the word ``perfect'' shouldn't be in anyone's vocabulary.

Like any aspect of governing, drafting and passing important legislation is about compromise and prioritization. It is about recognizing which fights need to be fought now and which ones can wait for another day.

I have been here a while. In that time, I have noticed a few things.

Some who are elected to this Chamber would rather fight the good ideological fight for legislative purity than get the majority of what they want--but not everything--through compromise. These people tend to claim that even the most embarrassing legislative losses are victories, so long as they can say that they went down swinging.

Now, don't get me wrong; speaking in terms of advocating good policy I have never been one to back down from a fight. In fact, I have battled some of the most revered and admired Senators in our Nation's history right here on the Senate floor.

One reason I think I have developed a reputation as an effective legislator is I don't believe that fighting for a cause is an end unto itself. Fights are only meaningful if there is an objective in mind. While I am no mathematician, I believe getting 60, 70, or 80 percent of what you want out of a bill is better than getting nothing, even if, on the way to getting nothing, you have fought a valiant fight for that perfect--yet ultimately unattainable--outcome.

The fight to repeal ObamaCare, at least from where I have been standing, has always had an objective in mind. That objective, of course, has been to actually repeal ObamaCare.

We have fought for that objective for more than 7 years. Now, we find ourselves on the cusp of being able to take major steps toward that larger goal.

No, we don't have a perfect bill to vote on. However, the fact remains that we are close to being able to pass legislation that would accomplish the majority of our goals and keep most of the promises we have all made to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

Before we can do any of that, we need to at least get a chance to consider and debate the matter on the floor. That is what this afternoon's vote was to determine: whether we are committed enough to this effort to at least take that step.

I remind my Republican colleagues that, when the ObamaCare reconciliation bill was brought up for debate in 2010, all of our friends on the other side, who were present at the time, except for one Member, voted in favor of the motion to proceed. They supported their leader. Leader McConnell is owed the same loyalty.

Any Senator who has fought with us to undo the damage caused by ObamaCare should be willing, at the very, very least, to take that step and allow the floor debate to actually happen.

I hope we all will. Toward that end, I urged my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to proceed to the House-passed reconciliation bill to allow the Senate to begin debate on repealing and replacing ObamaCare.

Madam President, July 24 marks a significant milestone in the history of my home State of Utah. On this day, 170 years ago, Brigham Young and the Mormon pioneers first entered the Salt Lake Valley. Facing violence and discrimination at every turn, Utah's early settlers crossed the Nation in search of a land where they could practice their religion free from prejudice and abuse. In the cradle of the Rocky Mountains, they found a home.

Each year, we remember the sacrifice of these courageous men and women and the miraculous events that led to the founding of our State by observing Pioneer Day. This special holiday is a celebration of the pioneer spirit, that unique mix of industry, ingenuity, and innovation that transformed an arid desert plain into one of the most prosperous States in the Nation.

Pioneer Day is a perennial reminder of how a people--left to their own devices and empowered to follow their dreams--can accomplish incredible things. It is a testament to what westerners can achieve when the government steps out of the way and allows the human spirit to flourish.

It seems only fitting then that on Pioneer Day I speak in support of David Bernhardt, a man who immediately understands the western way of life and has dedicated his career to defending it.

As my colleagues know, Mr. Bernhardt has been nominated to serve as the next Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior. Today, I wish to express my support for his confirmation in the strongest possible terms.

Mr. Bernhardt has a distinguished record of public service, having served for nearly 10 years in the Department of Interior as Solicitor, Deputy Solicitor, Deputy Chief of Staff, and Director of Congressional Affairs. Now that Mr. Bernhardt works in private practice, Mr. Bernhardt is regarded as one of the Nation's most experienced and authoritative legal minds on natural resource policy.

Broad support for Mr. Bernhardt's confirmation is a testament to the sterling reputation he has built over an accomplished career in both the public and private sectors. State wildlife management agencies, Native American Tribes, environmental conservation and wildlife protection groups, and the Congressional Western Caucus are among the many organizations that have strongly endorsed Mr. Bernhardt's nomination. He has also garnered the support of hundreds of recreationists, sportsmen, anglers, agricultural producers, and ranchers.

Nominating Mr. Bernhardt is in keeping with the President's promise to restore trust between westerners and the Federal Government. After just 6 months in office, our President has already made tremendous progress in repairing the broken relationship between local communities and the executive branch.

Of course, significant challenges remain, especially in my home State of Utah, where reduced access to Federal land has hurt the rural economy. Fortunately, as a former Interior Solicitor, Mr. Bernhardt has the legal and political background necessary to tackle some of the greatest challenges facing Utah and the West. He is well-equipped to improve sage grouse management practices, streamline permitting on Federal lands, and increase recreational access.

Mr. Bernhardt is also committed to fostering cooperation between Interior agencies and State and Tribal governments, in addition to reducing the National Park Service's backlog. Reducing the maintenance backlog is critical to tourism in Utah, which is home to the Mighty 5 national parks.

I applaud the nomination of Mr. Bernhardt. His breadth of experience makes him uniquely qualified to serve as Deputy Secretary, and I look forward to working with him and Secretary Zinke to further the important work of the Department of the Interior.

In that regard, I also praise Secretary Zinke, who, I think, is doing a terrific job in that Department, understanding the needs of the West, especially the needs of all those areas that we know are supervised by the Interior Department. He is a terrific human being, and I have a great deal of respect for him. The reason he is so good is because he has had all the experience working in the West and living in the West and doing the things that really have made the West a great place to begin with.

Mr. Bernhardt is going to be a great addition to our government, and I want to applaud Secretary Zinke for helping to push him forward.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I speak today to bid farewell to Kimberly Brandt. Kim has worked for the Senate Finance Committee as the chief oversight counsel for more than 6 years. Kim came to the Finance Committee after years of public service, and she leaves it to again answer the call to public service. While we are sorry to see her leave, I want to take a minute to note the important contributions she has made while on the Finance Committee.

She has coordinated oversight on virtually every conceivable topic within the ambit of the committee's jurisdiction. That work has included IRS, Medicaid and Medicare, Social Security, and trade compliance oversight.

While her work has been both bipartisan and exceptional, Kim is probably equally known to everyone here as the thoughtful baker.

Always cognizant of the little things, Kim made it her life's mission in the Senate to ensure every staffer and Senator had a cookie in their hand when they needed it most. Her mantra that there are only a few things in life a good cookie can't improve has spread like fresh flowers in a spring garden.

It is no wonder the first comment most of my staffers have made is ``who will make us cookies?'' after hearing that Kim is leaving. The most unfortunate thing, however, is that I am not sure there is anyone who can fill those shoes. Kim's cookies are perhaps the best I have ever had during my tenure in the Senate. Only my wife's lemon bars can compare, and I feel compelled to say that just to ensure I don't end up on the couch tonight.

I mean, my goodness, just talking about Kim's cookies is making me hungry. You just can't beat her peanut butter and chocolate chip cookies.

While Kim's attention to these little things have brought her considerable fame while she has worked here, there is little doubt in my mind that Kim's legacy extends far beyond her cuisine.

As just one example, Kim worked tirelessly through one of the largest investigations of the IRS that we have seen in recent memory. Kim's leadership ensured that our committee's analysis was both grounded in fact and integrity, and though it took several dozen months to complete, I don't believe there is anyone in this body that would dispute that report's precision, thoughtfulness, and earnestness.

She also has become known as the person who tackles complicated issues involving the Medicare and Medicaid Programs and develops creative, thoughtful policy solutions. That has been evident in her recent work on Medicaid over the past year and in her efforts to come up with solutions to the Medicare audit and appeals backlog, as well as the complicated and burdensome Stark rule. In each of these instances, Kim has engaged the impacted stakeholders and the relevant policy folks and come up with legislative ideas that are bipartisan. This is no small task.

It is this type of work ethic and reputable end product that makes Kim the type of person you hate to see leave, but you quietly rejoice that they are going to be the one helping steer the ship in the administration.

Truly, Kim's appointment as Principal Deputy Administrator for Operations at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, reflects this administration's desire to have quality individuals helping lead an agency facing daunting challenges. I don't think anyone would contend with the need for strong and informed leadership there. I can think of no one better suited for the position. I would like to take a few minutes to briefly reflect on Kim's experience to explain why I believe that to be true.

Before Kim came to the Finance Committee, she worked as senior counsel at Alston & Bird here in Washington, DC, advising clients on healthcare compliance and fraud and abuse issues. Prior to her work at Alston & Bird, Kim served 7 years as the director of the Medicare Program Integrity Group at CMS. For 5 years before that, Kim worked at the HHS Office of Inspector General as special counsel and director of external affairs and as a senior counsel negotiating False Claims Act settlements and drafting and monitoring corporate integrity agreements.

Just that work experience, in two administrations and a respected law firm, should be enough to qualify Kim for this important role, but I am not done. Kim also worked on authoring OIG's compliance guidance for individual and small group physician practices.

She received her J.D. with a concentration in health law from the

DePaul School of Law, an M.A. in legislative affairs and health policy from George Washington University, and her B.A. from Valparaiso University.

Kim has long been recognized nationally as an expert in healthcare compliance and fraud and abuse issues, but in 2016, that recognition culminated in her receiving the Healthcare Compliance and Ethics Professional of the Year award from the Society for Corporate Compliance and Ethics and the Health Care Compliance Association.

While I am sure to speak for all of my staff and fellow Senators when I say that we will miss Kim, I think I can also say, with confidence, that we have the greatest faith in Kim. Yes, we will probably have strikes due to the absence of Kim's baked goods, and yes, our oversight and Medicaid efforts will not be the same without Kim, but this is important work we are all engaged in, and it would be wrong to bar our great country from the service of this wonderful and highly talented friend of mine.

Before I conclude, though, I would like to harken back to one of my favorite stories about Kim.

It was in the wake of the Lois Lerner debacle. Kim and her team spent more than a dozen months hashing out a highly detailed and important investigation that revealed quite a bit more than what we were initially expecting. In the end, Kim and her team interviewed more than 32 current and former IRS and Treasury employees and reviewed nearly 1.5 million pages of documents. The fruit of their labor was a staggering and included a four-part treatise on the IRS's processing of 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) applications for tax-exempt status. There were thousands of pages of appendices and hundreds of pages of report text.

Before the report was finalized, however, I wanted to be sure I had read every word. Aside from the hefty amount of reading, it also created problems because the text included confidential taxpayer information and only those with clearance could enter my office while I reviewed the text. Kim's humor, wit, and zealous optimism kept me alert and motivated throughout the investigation of those hundreds of pages, and while I have always cherished Kim's famous cookies, they never tasted better than they did then.

Now, I had always appreciated Kim, but in this instance, her commitment to detail and integrity really struck me. To ensure that the product coming out of the committee was a complete and accurate one, she went back to the IRS to confirm that the committee had all relevant documents. Only then did we discover the thousands of pages of missing emails which would become a critical part of the investigation. If it weren't for Kim's hard work and intellectual rigor, we would have never discovered this fact, and throughout the investigation, which was often heated and impassioned on both sides of the aisle, Kim was fair, honest, and worked hard to keep the inquiry bipartisan, something no other committee in Congress could do.

This and many other incredible memories of Kim will be with me forever, and words can't quite say how truly grateful I am to have Kim help me make all those memories these past several years.

Our work in the Nation's Capital can get ugly sometimes. It can be partisan. We often wonder whether we can still get good people to go into public service, but then we are reminded that there are good people in this town who repeatedly answer the call to public service. Kim Brandt is one of these--and she is one of the best. The Finance Committee, the Senate, CMS, and, in honesty, the United States of America is lucky to have her in these roles, and we thank her for her hard work.

I am going to miss you, Kim.

I want to wish Kim, her beloved pup Sherlock, and her family all of the best. I feel no need to hesitate when I say that we are all proud of you and will miss you dearly.

Thank you.

Mr. President, is it appropriate to make a speech at this time?

Thank you, Mr. President.

President Ronald Reagan used to say that people are policy. Attacking a new President's policies, therefore, often includes undermining his or her ability to appoint men and women to lead his or her administration.

The Constitution gives to the President the power to appoint executive branch officials. The Senate has the power of advice and consent as a check on that appointment power.

In the early months of the Obama administration, Senate Democrats were clear about how we should carry out our role in the appointment process. Less than 2 weeks after President Obama took office, the Judiciary Committee chairman said he wished that the Senate could have put the new Justice Department leadership in place even more quickly. Just 3 months into President Obama's first term, the chairman argued that, ``at the beginning of a presidential term, it makes sense to have the President's nominees in place earlier, rather than engage in needless delay.''

Well, actions speak much louder than words. With a Republican in the White House, Senate Democrats have turned our role of advice and consent into the most aggressive obstruction campaign in history.

This chart is an illustration.

Democrats complained about obstruction when, during the first 6 months of the Obama administration, the Senate confirmed 69 percent of his nominations. Today marks 6 months since President Trump took the oath of office, and the Senate has been able to confirm only 23 percent of his nominations.

I ask my Democratic colleagues: If 69 percent is too low, what do you call a confirmation pace that is two-thirds lower?

Democrats do not have the votes to defeat nominees outright. That is why the centerpiece of their obstruction campaign is a strategy to make confirming President Trump's nominees as difficult and time-consuming as possible.

Here is how they do it. The Senate is designed for deliberation as well as for action. As a result, the Senate must end debate on a nomination before it can confirm that nomination. Doing so informally is fast. Doing it formally is slow.

In the past, the majority and minority informally agreed on the necessity or length of any debate on a nomination, as well as when a confirmation vote would occur. The first step in the Democrats' obstruction campaign, therefore, is to refuse any cooperation on scheduling debates and votes on nominations. The only option is to use the formal process of ending debate by invoking cloture under Senate rule XXII. A motion to end debate is filed, but the vote on that motion cannot occur for 2 calendar days. If cloture is invoked, there can then be up to 30 hours of debate before a confirmation vote can occur.

The Democrats' obstruction playbook calls for stretching this process out as long as possible. While informal cooperation can take a couple of hours, the formal cloture process can take up to several days.

The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said that you are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own set of facts. I would state, then, to let the confirmation facts do the talking.

President Trump and his three predecessors were each elected with the Senate controlled by his own political party. This is another illustration right here. At this point in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, the Senate had taken no cloture votes--nothing, none whatsoever--as you can see, on nominations. We took just four nomination cloture votes at this point during the Obama administration. So far in the Trump administration, the Senate has taken 33 cloture votes on nominations. Think about that. If that isn't obstruction, I don't know what is. It is not even close.

There is one very important difference between cloture votes taken in the beginning of the Clinton, Bush, or Obama administrations and those taken this year. In November 2013, Democrats effectively abolished nomination filibusters by lowering the vote

necessary to end debate from a supermajority of 60 to a simple majority. It now takes no more votes to end debate than it does to confirm a nomination. In other words, the Senate did not take cloture votes during previous administrations, even though doing so could have prevented confirmation.

Today, Democrats are forcing the Senate to take dozens of cloture votes even though doing so cannot prevent confirmation. At least half of these useless cloture votes taken so far would have passed even under the higher 60-vote threshold.

Earlier this week, 88 Senators, including 41 Democrats, voted to end debate on President Trump's nominee to be Deputy Secretary of Defense. We have seen tallies of 67, 81, 89, and even 92 votes for ending debate. Meanwhile, these needless delays are creating critical gaps in the executive branch.

A clear example is the nomination of Makan Delrahim, a former Senate staffer whom everybody on both sides knows, is a wonderful guy, and who everybody knows is honest. But this clear example is the nomination of Delrahim to head the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice. Antitrust enforcement is a critical element of national economic policy. It protects consumers and businesses alike, and, without filling these important posts, uncertainty in the market reigns. This is a particular problem at a time of common and massive mergers and acquisitions. Yet Mr. Delrahim, like dozens of others, has been caught in the maelstrom of delays. Mr. Delrahim was appointed out of the Judiciary Committee on a 19-to-1 vote. Everybody there knows how good he is, how decent he is, how honorable he is, and how bipartisan he has been. He is supremely qualified and enjoyed broad support throughout the Senate as a whole. Yet his nomination, like so many others, languishes on the floor because of Democratic obstruction. Indeed, it has taken longer to get Mr. Delrahim confirmed than any Antitrust Division leader since the Carter administration. Keep in mind that this is a former staffer of ours who served both Democrats and Republicans.

Regarding the delay of Mr. Delrahim's confirmation, I ask unanimous consent to have two news articles printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Mr. Delrahim's appointment is just one example among many. This particular example serves an important case in point. Democrats are deliberately slow walking dozens of confirmations in a cynical effort to stall the President's agenda and hurt the President, but they are hurting the country, and they are hurting the Senate. They are hurting both sides.

I don't want to see Republicans respond in kind when Democrats become the majority and when they have a President.

It won't surprise anyone to hear that they are not limiting their obstruction campaign to executive branch nominees. In fact, looking at the judicial branch shows that this is part of a long-term obstruction strategy. In February 2001, just days after the previous Republican President took office, the Senate Democratic leader said they would use ``any means necessary'' to obstruct the President's nominees. A few months later Democrats huddled in Florida to plot how, as the New York Times described it, to ``change the ground rules'' of the confirmation process. And change the ground rules is exactly what they did.

For two centuries, the confirmation ground rules called for reserving time-consuming rollcall votes for controversial nominees so that Senators could record their opposition. Nominations with little or no opposition were confirmed more efficiently by voice vote or unanimous consent.

Democrats have literally turned the confirmation process inside out. Before 2001, the Senate used a rollcall vote to confirm just 4 percent--4 percent--of judicial nominees and only 20 percent of those rollcall votes were unopposed nominees.

During the Bush Administration, after Democrats changed the ground rules, the Senate confirmed more than 60 percent of judicial nominees by rollcall vote, and more than 85 percent of those rollcall votes were on unopposed nominees.

Today, with a Republican President again in office, Democrats are still trying to change the confirmation ground rules. The confirmation last week of David Nye to be a U.S. district judge was a prime example. The vote to end debate on the Nye nomination was 97 to 0. In other words, every Senator, including every Democrat, voted to end the debate. Most people with common sense would be asking why the cloture vote was held at all and why the delay.

But Democrats did not stop there. Even after a unanimous cloture vote, they insisted on the full 30 hours of postcloture debate time provided for under Senate rules. To top it off, the vote to confirm the nomination was 100 to 0.

I don't want anyone to miss this. Democrats demanded a vote on ending a debate none of them wanted, and then they refused to end the debate they had just voted to terminate--all of this on a nomination that every Democrat supported. That is changing the confirmation ground rules.

Only four of the previous 275 cloture votes on nominations had been unanimous. In every previous case, whatever the reason was for the cloture vote in the first place, the Senate proceeded promptly to a confirmation vote.

In 2010, for example, the Senate confirmed President Obama's nomination of Barbara Keenan to the Fourth Circuit 2 hours after unanimously voting to end debate.

In 2006 the Senate confirmed the nomination of Kent Jordan to the Third Circuit less than 3 hours after unanimously ending debate.

In 2002 the Senate confirmed by voice vote the nomination of Richard Carmona to be Surgeon General less than 1 hour after unanimously ending debate.

The Nye nomination was the first time the Senate unanimously invoked cloture on a U.S. district court nominee. This was the first time there was a unanimous vote to end debate on any nomination on which the minority refused to allow a prompt confirmation vote.

Here is another chart that shows the percent confirmed by rollcall vote during the Clinton administration, the George W. Bush administration, and the Obama administration. Here we have the Trump administration, and, as you can see, they are not confirming his nominees even if they are qualified and the Democrats admit it. No matter how my friends across the aisle try to change the subject, these facts are facts.

While the Senate used time-consuming rollcall votes to confirm less

than 10 percent of the previous three Presidents' executive branch nominees, under President Trump, it is nearly 90 percent.

I admit the Democrats are bitter about the Trump win. I understand that. Everybody on their side expected Hillary Clinton to win. Many on our side expected her to win as well. But she didn't. President Trump is now President, and he did win, and he is doing a good job of delivering people up here to the Senate for confirmation.

This is not how the confirmation process is supposed to work.

The Constitution makes Senate confirmation a condition for Presidential appointments. This campaign of obstruction is exactly what the Senate Democrats once condemned. Further poisoning and politicizing the confirmation process only damages the Senate, distorts the separation of powers, and undermines the ability of the President to do what he was elected to do.

I hope our colleagues on the other side will wise up and realize that what they are doing is destructive to the Senate, harmful to the Senate, and it is a prelude to what can happen when they get the Presidency. I don't want to see that happen on the Republican side.

Mr. President, the final pieces of ObamaCare were signed into law a little over 7 years ago. Since that time, Republicans--not just in Congress but throughout the country--have been united in their opposition to the law and our commitment to repeal it. This hasn't been simply a political or partisan endeavor. We are not just trying to take a notch out of President Obama's ``win'' column. The simple truth is that ObamaCare is not working.

The law was poorly written, and the system it created was poorly designed. Even a number of ObamaCare supporters have come to acknowledge that it hasn't been working the way it was promised to work. As a result, millions of Americans have suffered astronomical increases in their health insurance premiums and fewer and fewer insurance options to choose from. That is ObamaCare's great irony: The law requires people to buy health insurance while also making it impossible to do so.

For 7\1/2\ years, Republicans have fought to expose the failures of ObamaCare and have pledged time and time again to repeal it. Every single Republican Member of the Senate has expressed support for repealing ObamaCare. Most of us have made promises to our constituents to do just that. And those promises, coupled with the obvious failures of ObamaCare, are a big reason why we now find ourselves in control of both Chambers of Congress and the Presidency.

For the last 6 months, Republicans have worked in good faith to find a path forward to both repeal and replace ObamaCare. The released discussion drafts attempted to bridge the divide between our more conservative and moderate Members, so the products were never going to be perfect. Such is the inherent nature of compromise. The draft released last week included additions to address Member priorities and was likely the best chance we had at a compromise bill to repeal and replace ObamaCare with significant entitlement reform. But last night a handful of our Members announced they would not support the compromise bill, even though it would have repealed ObamaCare's taxes, reformed Medicaid by putting it on a sustainable path for future generations, and included the largest pro-life protections on Federal spending I have ever seen.

This was the opportunity we had been working toward. All we had to do was come together and compromise, and 7\1/2\ years of promises would have been much, much closer to being fulfilled. But last night we blinked. And, frankly, I think the Members who opted to scuttle the compromise bill will eventually have to explain to their constituents why they left so many ObamaCare fixes on the table and walked away from this historic opportunity.

So where does that leave us? The majority leader has announced his intention to shelve the effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare with a single piece of legislation. Instead, the Senate will move forward to vote on legislation to simply repeal ObamaCare, with a 2-year delay. So, long story short, we have one more chance to do what we have all said we wanted to do.

I am aware that some Members have already expressed their skepticism, if not their opposition, to this approach. I hope they will take the time to reconsider. As Senators contemplate this path, they should keep in mind that the upcoming vote is not about the next 2 years, nor is it about the past 6 months. We are not going to be voting to approve a specific process for drafting and enacting an ObamaCare replacement, and we are not voting to approve the way this effort has moved forward during this Congress.

I know some of our colleagues have doubts about the path forward. Others have complaints about the path that got us here. But this vote, in my view, will simply be about whether we intend to live up to our promises. Do we want to repeal ObamaCare, or are we fine with leaving it in place? That is the question we have to ask ourselves.

Keep in mind, the vast majority of Republican Senators are already on record having voted 2 years ago in favor of a full ObamaCare repeal with a 2-year delay. Of course, in 2015, we knew that the President would veto that legislation, and we now know that the current occupant of the White House would surely sign it. That is really the only difference between then and now. Was the vote in 2015 just a political stunt? Was it just pure partisanship? I know some of our Democratic colleagues claim that was the case. Were they right? I sure hope not. On the contrary, I sincerely hope that any Member of the Senate who voted for the 2015 bill and who has spent the last 7\1/2\ years pledging to repeal ObamaCare hasn't suddenly decided to change his or her position now that the vote has a chance to actually matter.

If we vote to pass a full repeal, will we be solving all of our healthcare problems with a single vote? Certainly not. But that was never going to be the case. Anyone who thought repealing and replacing ObamaCare would be easy once we had the votes was likely not paying attention to the problems plaguing our healthcare system. However, if we act now to pass the full repeal, we will be taking significant steps toward accomplishing our goal and keeping our promises.

If we pass up yet another opportunity, if we can't muster the votes to pass something we have already passed, I have a hard time believing we will get another shot to fulfill our promise and repeal this unworkable law anytime soon. What does that mean? Among other things, it means a congressional bailout of failing insurance markets, probably before the end of 2017. Frankly, that ship may have sailed on that one after last night's developments. We are probably looking at an insurance bailout one way or another. Those who will be interested in moving an insurance bailout later this year should be ready to explain how they want to pay for it.

Failure would also mean premiums will continue to skyrocket and people will be left with few, if any, available insurance options, even though they

will still face penalties if they don't make a purchase. It would mean that the ObamaCare taxes and mandates remain in place, and it would keep Medicaid expansion on the books indefinitely, most certainly creating a scenario for Governors to advocate for the Federal Government to continue paying close to 100 percent of the share for able-bodied adults.

We already know what happens if we leave ObamaCare in place. That scenario is playing out before our very eyes. That downward spiral of broken promises--the one the American people have to deal with every day--is the reason we have all committed to repealing ObamaCare.

Don't get me wrong. I wish the path that got us to this point had been easier, with less melodrama and acrimony. To be honest, I wish we had simply moved to this full repeal strategy at the outset because, as I noted several times earlier in this year, it is probably the most feasible path forward if we want to achieve our goals.

It would be nice if things had gone differently. But this is where we are, with only 52 Republicans in the Senate and a minority that from the beginning has wanted no part of this process.

Right now, we have essentially two choices. We can keep talking about repealing ObamaCare and wishing for a better future, one with more Republican votes or more Democrats willing to acknowledge the reality, or we can press forward with the numbers we have and make good on the commitments we have made to the American people.

To quote the old Scottish nursery rhyme, if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. Translation: More talking and more wishing will not get us anywhere.

We can either take a significant step forward to undo ObamaCare's mandates and taxes, which have collectively wreaked havoc on our healthcare system, or we can dither about some more and leave them in place for the foreseeable future. In my view, the choice is an easy one.

I urge all of my colleagues to once again vote with me to repeal ObamaCare. We have blown a number of opportunities already in recent weeks. Last night, we blew a big one. I hope we can avoid doing the same with this upcoming vote. If not, we will have to answer to the American people and explain to them why we failed.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I withdraw it.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Mr. Patrick Shanahan to be Deputy Secretary of Defense.

The Department of Defense is going through historic changes in its organizational structure. These much needed changes are thanks to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and his unwavering commitment to strengthening our Nation's security and ensuring that American taxpayers get the best return on their investment. We should all applaud the chairman for his efforts.

But even as we make these reforms, we should also heed the lessons of the past. History shows us that the Department of Defense runs best under a Secretary who is a strong policy leader and a Deputy Secretary who is a dynamic business manager. The most obvious example of this preferred structure was when David Packard, the former CEO of the Hewlett-Packard corporation, was confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Defense. Thanks to Deputy Secretary Packard's considerable business acumen, his term in office is still regarded as the model of effective management at the Department of Defense.

That leads us to today and our once-in-a-generation opportunity to replicate this efficiency and success at the Department of Defense. The pieces are now in place. Chairman McCain has provided the statutory catalyst, and I am sorry he has had some difficulty healthwise over the last few days. We can't wait to get him back. Secretary Mattis is a brilliant thinker and a master strategist who is providing the critical leadership we need during this period of uncertainty, and today he is seeking to replicate the Packard model by choosing as his Deputy a man of proven business and management skill.

I understand that things could have gone a bit better during Mr. Shanahan's confirmation hearing, but I believe we all should remember that Mr. Shanahan has not been nominated for a position in public affairs--far from it. He has been nominated to be a strong manager who can increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department of Defense. In this role, I believe Mr. Shanahan will excel. I think everybody who knows him believes that.

Currently, Mr. Shanahan is a senior vice president at the Boeing corporation, where he has been responsible for designing and producing some of the world's most complex machines. For example, when the Boeing Company's latest aircraft, the 787, was experiencing developmental difficulties, Mr. Shanahan was one of the key leaders tasked to solve these issues, earning himself the nickname ``Mr. Fix-it.''

As further evidence of his leadership, I was particularly impressed with one of Mr. Shanahan's written answers to the Armed Services Committee's questions. He wrote:

In my three decades of experience, I have developed and

practiced a formula to create change at scale in large,

complex organizations. I believe leadership is essential to

changing the status-quo--setting a compelling vision,

establishing ambitious goals and realistic intermediate

objectives, and converting strategy into action.

Is that not exactly the type of person we want to be managing and reforming the Department of Defense? I personally think it is.

Finally, I believe Mr. Shanahan's most important credential is that he is Secretary Mattis's choice to be the Deputy Secretary of Defense. I firmly believe Secretary Mattis will be remembered as one of our Nation's premier national security leaders. The Secretary does not fool around. He demands the best in himself and those around him. If Secretary Mattis wants Mr. Shanahan, then I believe the Senate should speed his confirmation so the good work can continue.

If confirmed, I look forward to working with Mr. Shanahan, especially to ensure that the Department of Defense maintains our current statutory requirements regarding our defense logistics capabilities. I strongly believe Mr. Shanahan will play a critical role in leading the Department of Defense to a new era of effectiveness and efficiency.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have one request for a committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. President, today I wish to make some remarks paying tribute to a former staff member of mine for whom I have the highest opinion. However, before I begin those remarks, I should take a moment to address the elephant in the room.

Mr. President, today the majority leader revealed a revised discussion draft for legislation to repeal and replace ObamaCare. Let me say at the outset that this bill isn't perfect. There are some things in the bill that, given my preferences, I would do very differently. But one thing I have learned in my 40 years in this Senate is that people who demand purity and perfection when it comes to legislation usually end up disappointed and rarely accomplish anything productive. That is particularly true when we are talking about complex policy matters.

The next vote on this legislation will presumably be whether to let the Senate proceed to the bill. Regardless of any of the positions of my colleagues on this particular draft, if they support the larger effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare, they should at the very least want to have a debate on this bill. Under the rules, we will have an open amendment process. Members will get a chance to make their preferences known and to have the Senate vote on them. Taking that opportunity is the very least we can do.

Keep in mind, virtually every Republican in this body has supported the effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare more or less since the day it was signed into law. We have all made promises to our constituents along those lines. This legislation, while far from perfect, would fulfill the vast majority of those promises.

If we pass up this opportunity, we are looking at further collapse of our health insurance markets, which means dramatically higher premiums and even fewer healthcare options for our constituents. Make no mistake, while some are talking about a bipartisan solution to prop up markets in the event this bill fails, there is no magic elixir or silver bullet that will make that an easy proposition.

I have to think that at the end of the day, if we fail to take action to fulfill the promises we have all made, we will have to answer to the American people for the missed opportunity and the chaos that will almost certainly follow. I hope all of my colleagues will keep that in mind.

Mr. President, I have 9 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, nutrition, and forestry

The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 10 a.m., in 328A Russell Senate Office Building, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Opportunities in Global and Local Markets, Specialty Crops, and Organics: Perspectives for the 2018 Farm Bill.''

committee on armed services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 13, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in open session, to receive testimony on the attempted coup in Montenegro and malign Russian influence in Europe.

committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress.''

committee on finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 13, 2017, at 10:15 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider the nomination of Kevin K. McAleenan, of Hawaii, to be Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Protection Department of Homeland Security.

committee on foreign relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Review of the 2017 Trafficking in Persons Report.''

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, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nomination Hearing for Deputy Secretary of Labor and Members of the National Labor Relations Board'' on Thursday, July 13, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

committee on the judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on July 13, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

committee on intelligence

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Thursday, July 13, 2017 from 2 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold a closed hearing.

committee on commerce, science, and transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 13, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a Subcommittee Hearing on ``Reopening the American Frontier: Promoting Partnerships Between Commercial Space and the U.S. Government to Advance Exploration and Settlement.''

Mr. President, I rise to once again discuss the ongoing effort to reform our Nation's Tax Code. Over the past several years, I have come to the floor often to make the case for tax reform by highlighting the many shortcomings of our current tax system and

discussing the benefits we could reap by making the necessary changes.

Over the last years while I have been serving as chairman or the lead Republican on the Senate tax-writing committee--both as ranking member and as chairman--I have made tax reform my top priority, and right now, I believe there is more momentum in favor of tax reform than we have seen in decades.

To capitalize on that momentum, reform advocates like myself need to continue to make the case for updating and fixing our broken tax system. Toward that end, I intend to come to the floor often in the coming weeks and months to discuss various aspects of our tax system and make the case for reform. In my view, we need to go back to the drawing board and fundamentally rethink our entire tax system. This includes both the individual, as well as the business side of the tax ledger.

Today, I want to talk specifically about our Nation's business tax system, with a particular focus on the corporate tax.

Let's get the obvious out of the way first: The United States has the highest statutory corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. Looking at the effective corporate tax rates tells an equally gloomy story of the lack of American competitiveness. I will have more to say on that in a minute.

I know some like to rail on corporate America and claim they aren't paying their fair share, but the facts tell a different story. Companies doing business in the United States are saddled with statuary tax rates that are higher than any other industrialized country. This isn't just a Republican talking point; Members and commentators from both parties and across the ideological spectrum have acknowledged that this is the problem.

For example, just last year, former President Bill Clinton argued for a reduction in corporate tax rates, noting that he had urged for the corporate tax to be raised to 35 percent when he was President because ``it was precisely in the middle of OECD countries. It isn't anymore.''

Early in his Presidency, President Obama said: ``Our current corporate tax system is outdated, unfair, and inefficient.'' He also said that our corporate tax system ``hits companies that choose to stay in America with one of the highest tax rates in the world.'' I might add, he did nothing about it, though.

In addition, my counterpart on the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Wyden, has introduced legislation that would reduce corporate tax rates by more than 10 percent.

In a Finance Committee report in 2015 on international tax reform, put out by a working group cochaired by my friends and colleagues Senators Portman and Schumer, it was clearly stated that ``no matter what jurisdiction a U.S. multinational company is competing in, it is at a competitive disadvantage.''

There are plenty of other examples of prominent Democrats who recognized the impact of our obnoxiously high corporate tax rate.

I want to turn back to Bill Clinton's point, though, because it is an important one. We must always remember that businesses are, by and large, rational actors, making decisions based on what will help grow their business and what will cause their businesses to stagnate or move backward. Such decisions inevitably include where a company will do business and where it will be incorporated.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, businesses contemplating investment and other similar matters--especially incorporation in the United States--must first come to terms with the largest combined corporate tax rate among OECD member countries, which is currently at 39.1 percent.

Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle like to counter these inconvenient facts by acknowledging the difference between effective tax rates, which are rates after accounting for deductions and credits, and statutory tax rates. Of course, even when taking those differences into account and focusing solely on effective rates, the United States only falls from the highest to the fourth highest corporate rate among countries in the G20--and that is according to 2012 data that doesn't yet capture recent tax reforms in the UK and elsewhere.

In other words, whether we are talking about effective rates or statutory rates in the United States, we are talking about some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and, as the working group cochaired by Senators Portman and Schumer made clear, this translates into American companies constantly being put at a competitive disadvantage. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in economics to recognize that this has had a major, negative impact on our economy and the ability of the American job creators to compete on the world stage.

As a result of the astronomically high corporate tax rates in our country, we have seen companies--that, keep in mind, have duties to their shareholders--engage in inversions, earnings stripping, and profit shifting, all of which erode our tax base and drive away American ingenuity and innovation. These types of activities ship jobs, economic activity, intellectual property, and capital offshore, rather than keeping them right here in America. The primary driver behind most of these practices--practices that have been decried in the harshest rhetoric by some of our friends here in the Senate--is the desire to avoid or at the very least mitigate the impact of the U.S. corporate tax.

While I am no fan of inversions or foreign takeovers or aggressive tax-planning techniques that shift profits around the globe in search of low taxes, and I don't want to see any unnecessary erosion of the U.S. tax base, I can hardly fault any company for simply responding to the incentives created by our business tax system and the competitive actions of other countries that have been lowering their corporate tax rates.

Unfortunately, instead of recognizing the perverse incentives of our current tax system, coupled with companies' duties to their shareholders, many of my Democratic friends--most notably, prominent officials in the previous administration--have derided the executives and board members making these decisions, claiming that they lack, in the words of our previous U.S. Treasury Secretary, ``economic patriotism.'' The truth is that when it comes to our business tax system, some of our friends have buried their heads in the sand.

Let's take a quick stroll through recent history. In the 20 years between 1983 and 2003, there were just 29 corporate inversions in the United States. In the 11 years between 2003 and 2014--a period spanning both Democratic and Republican Presidencies--there were 47 tax inversions--nearly double the number in half the amount of time. A quick review of changes in other industrialized nations' tax schemes will show that while the United States has stubbornly maintained the same corporate tax rate for more than three decades, other countries have nimbly adapted to the growing competition in the global marketplace.

I have spoken at length about inversions before, so I will not belabor the issue now. What I do want to say is that when I talk to board members and CEOs of some of the largest companies in the country, they tend to be unequivocal when asked why they feel pressure to invert. Almost uniformly, their answer is our outrageously high corporate tax rate.

Personally, I think this is one of the reasons why my friends and colleagues who sit on committees that regularly engage in these topics have come to recognize the level of our corporate tax rate as the major problem that it is.

When I talk to constituents in Utah and Americans across the country, I hear of stagnant growth in wages and income, concerns over lack of opportunities and jobs, and worries about whether their employers will continue to operate here in the United States of America.

Of course, the problem with our corporate tax system isn't just that it incentivizes companies to move offshore or discourages businesses from forming here in the United States in the first place; the problems actually run much deeper.

Since 1947, the average growth of inflation-adjusted GDP in the United States has been 3.2 percent. Unfortunately, in the 8 years of the Obama administration, the growth rate was an anemic 1.8 percent.

I know that several of my colleagues would, in response to those data points, argue that much of that is due to the great recession that took place at the initial stages of President Obama's time in office; however, a quick review of the quarterly growth rates since 1947 will show that there are normally periods of growth following recessions as the economy rebounds and the values of assets normalize again. In the case of the great recession of 2008 to 2009, that normal rebound did not occur, and a big reason why is the downward pressure imposed by our outdated tax scheme. Let's remember that the recession ended in June 2009--more than 8 years ago.

Others still might argue that this is all academic. They might even be brazen enough to claim that when we talk about the corporate tax rate, we are talking about the problems of the rich and not the middle class. Again, anyone making such an argument would simply be ignoring the facts and could be considered an idiot. Make no mistake--the crippling corporate tax rate in our country has stifled growth and investment in American businesses. This doesn't just impact Wall Street investors or rich CEOs, it has a negative effect on the middle class and on lower income workers. That effect comes in the form of fewer jobs, less investment in America, and sluggish growth and productivity that fuels wage and income growth.

Since 1953, real median family income in the United States--meaning that half of the country earned more and half of the country earned less--has grown at an average rate of 1.3 percent. Under the Obama administration, that same indicator--one of the best indicators of the true status of the middle class--grew at approximately half that rate, or 0.7 percent. The growth of the average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory workers during the Obama administration was half of the historic long-run average. What is more, labor force participation was set firmly on a downward trajectory throughout the Obama administration and has yet to recover.

As you can see, there is clear evidence that the economy is not working well for many American workers and middle-class families. Anyone arguing that our current tax system is a benefit to the middle class is, in my view, sadly misinformed or being deliberately misleading.

Over the years, I have seen many of my friends on the other side come to the Senate floor demanding new standards, higher wages, and increased protections for middle-class workers. Yet many of the tax policies they tend to support would have the opposite effect.

There is almost universal agreement among economists that the corporate tax is the most inefficient tax in existence. In addition, a large percentage--some economists say as much as 75 percent--of the burden imposed by the corporate tax is borne by a corporation's employees. In other words, our high corporate tax rate isn't just a burden on faceless corporations or rich shareholders, the burden is disproportionately borne by the factory workers and scientists and even the janitors who work for corporations, large and small.

A reduced corporate tax rate would allow American companies to compete with their international counterparts on a more level playing field. A reduced corporate tax rate would mean fewer businesses would move offshore, taking their jobs and investments elsewhere. A reduced corporate tax rate would incentivize more new companies to set up shop in the United States and lead more established companies to invest their capital and hire workers here rather than in lower tax jurisdictions found in places like Canada, the UK, Ireland, or elsewhere.

Mr. President, our shared goal should be to make the United States an inviting place to locate a business, invest, hire workers, and create new ideas and products, but that will not be the case so long as we cling to our punitive corporate tax system.

Now, of course, when it comes to tax reform, our focus needs to move beyond the corporate tax rates. We need to talk about making the individual tax system simpler and fairer and offer tax relief to the middle class and small, passthrough businesses. We need to talk more about fixing our international system to further improve the competitiveness of American job creators and prevent further erosion of our tax base. And we need to remove burdens on savings and investment that keep middle-class Americans from generating and accumulating wealth for the future.

I am going to talk more about all of these topics and others in the coming weeks and months.

All of the improvements that we can make on these tax issues will become key elements of an effective tax reform package. In addition, I believe they are all areas where Republicans and Democrats can find agreement if we are all committed to the same goal--growing our economy to benefit the middle class.

As I have said here on the floor many times, tax reform does not have to be another partisan exercise. I hope my Democratic colleagues will opt to join Republicans in this effort. As they have acknowledged the problems with our current tax system, I sincerely hope they will want to work with us to find a way to fix that tax system.

As I said, I will have more to say in the near future, but these issues--our outdated business tax system and profanely high corporate tax rate--will not simply go away. I personally am committed to fixing these problems and will work with anyone who is willing to join the effort in good faith.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Andrew Rollo, a detailee on the Senate Committee on Finance, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the Congress.