Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to honor the memory of former Congressman Jay Dickey, who passed on April 20. When Jay Dickey roamed the Halls of Congress, you knew there might be mischief afoot-- and what merry mischief it was.

Jay was opinionated, colorful, and zany. Now that he has passed, the warm laughter of memories once again echoes in these cold, marble halls as we reflect on his life.

He died last Thursday after a battle with Parkinson's, a battle he fought like every other--with determination and gusto. I, for one, will miss his counsel and friendship, as will the people of Arkansas whom he loved so deeply.

Jay was an Arkansas original. He was born and bred and in the end breathed his last in his hometown of Pine Bluff. He shared a lot in common with the mighty pines of South Arkansas. He stood tall and proud of his community's heritage. He was a pillar of the community. A lawyer and a businessman, he left his mark as an entrepreneur, starting franchises throughout the State, as an advocate representing the city and later taking on such famous clients as coach Eddie Sutton.

Unlike the proverbial tree in the forest, now that Jay Dickey has fallen, the whole State has taken notice.

But, of course, a man's accomplishments are only a window into his character. You had to know Jay personally to get a sense of all the fun there was inside him. It was as if his feet had sunk deep into the soil and soaked up all of the Natural State's richness: its humor, its earnestness, and its strip-the-bark-off candor.

I got to know Jay in my first political campaign. We had never met, and I was a political newcomer, but Jay spent many hours getting to know me and ultimately supported my candidacy, which helped to put me on the map.

Of course, Jay shared a lot of candid advice too. After attending one of my early townhalls, Jay and I went to lunch down the road at Cracker Barrel. I asked him how I did. Jay replied:

Ya did good. Ya did good. But you gotta cut it down some.

Ya see that baked potato there? That's a fully loaded baked

potato--it's got cheese, sour cream, bacon, onions. Your

answers are like that fully loaded baked potato! Make em like

a plain potato.

That is just one of the countless stories that added to his legend.

This was the man who offered a ninth grader a college-level internship because he thought the kid had potential; the man who answered any phone in his office that rang twice, just to keep his staff on their toes; the man whose dog once drove his truck into a radio station in Hampton because he left the truck running during an interview to keep the dog cool, and somehow that dog put it in gear; the man who kept a picture of Jesus on his wall, and who, when meeting a new client, would point to the picture and say: ``Have you met my friend?''

Yes, the first great joy of his life was his faith, but the second great joy was politics. Jay was the first Republican elected to Congress from South Arkansas since Reconstruction. He won in 1992, the very same year Arkansas elected our Democratic Governor as President.

Despite being who the Democrats must have viewed as the most Republican incumbent in the country, he held onto that seat for almost a decade. Arkansans knew good stock when

they saw it. He lost only by the narrowest of margins in 2000, with President Bill Clinton campaigning for his opponent, then-State Senator Mike Ross. True to form for Jay, he and Mike would become friends after that race, speaking regularly about issues and their faith.

Jay's time in office will not be remembered as a historical oddity, an anomaly, or a one-off because unconventional though it was, it was also a forerunner of things to come. It was an early sign of a coming political realignment, as the small towns that dotted rural America-- towns where few people had ever even seen a Republican, never mind voted for one--were starting to cast their votes up and down the ballot for the Grand Old Party.

In other words, Jay Dickey was a trailblazer--or perhaps a bulldozer. He smashed through history and precedent and grooved a path in rough terrain for the rest of us to follow. For that, he has my thanks and the thanks of the people of Arkansas, and for his humorous, quirky, unparalleled example, he has the thanks of the U.S. Congress, which today is a little sadder for his passing but also a little brighter for his memory.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this week the Senate will fulfill one of our most important responsibilities: advice and consent for a nominee to the Supreme Court. The stakes don't get much higher than a lifetime appointment to a court of final appeal, especially if the court has presumed over the last two generations to take more and more political and moral questions out of the hands of the people.

President Trump has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch, a distinguished jurist who understands the critical but limited role of the Federal courts in our constitutional system. To my knowledge, no Senator genuinely disputes his eminent qualifications, his judicial temperament, and his outstanding record over the last decade on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Indeed, Judge Gorsuch would appear headed toward an easy, noncontroversial confirmation based on the comments by Democratic Senators.

The senior Senator from Colorado introduced Judge Gorsuch at his confirmation hearings with this high praise:

I have no doubt that . . . Judge Gorsuch has profound

respect for an independent judiciary and the vital role it

plays as a check on the executive and legislative branches. I

may not always agree with his rulings, but I believe Judge

Gorsuch is unquestionably committed to the rule of law.

The senior Senator from Indiana recently announced his support for Judge Gorsuch, saying:

I believe that he is a qualified jurist who will base his

decisions on his understanding of the law and is well

respected among his peers.

The senior Senator from West Virginia has noted:

[Judge Gorsuch] has been consistently rated as a well-

qualified jurist, the highest rating a jurist can receive,

and I have found him to be an honest and thoughtful man.

The junior Senator from North Dakota also praised Judge Gorsuch for his ``record as a balanced, meticulous, and well-respected jurist who understands the rule of law.''

Remember, these admiring statements all come from Democrats, and all of them support an up-or-down vote on confirming Judge Gorsuch.

Even those who oppose Judge Gorsuch used to sing a different tune about the standards for judicial confirmation.

For instance, the senior Senator from California put it best when she said:

I think, when it comes to filibustering a Supreme Court

appointment, you really have to have something out there,

whether it's gross moral turpitude or something that comes to

the surface.

Speaking of a previous Republican President's nominee, she further said:

Now, I mean, this is a man I might disagree with. That

doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court.

In fact, President Obama filibustered a Supreme Court nomination while he was a Senator, yet later expressed regret over that decision. He said:

I think that, historically, if you look at it, regardless

of what votes particular Senators have taken, there's been a

basic consensus, a basic understanding, that the Supreme

Court is different. And each caucus may decide who's going to

vote where and what but that basically you let the vote come

up, and you make sure that a well-qualified candidate is able

to join the bench even if you don't particularly agree with

him.

Despite all of this, though, it appears that a radical Democratic minority intends to filibuster Judge Gorsuch's nomination. The minority leader is encouraging this extreme fringe, claiming, ``If Judge Gorsuch fails to earn 60 votes and fails to demonstrate he is mainstream enough to sit on the highest court, we should change the nominee, not the rules.''

I will return later to the minority leader's central and ironic role in all of this. For now, let's take a trip down memory lane so as to understand just how radical this partisan filibuster would be.

No Supreme Court nominee has ever failed because of a partisan filibuster--never, not once, ever--in the 228 years of our venerable Constitution. One nominee, Justice Abe Fortas--to be elevated to Chief Justice--lost one cloture vote in 1968 on a bipartisan basis. He then withdrew under an ethical cloud, but no Supreme Court nominee has ever been defeated by a partisan filibuster.

This historical standard has nothing to do with changes in the Senate rules. The filibuster has been permitted under Senate rules since early in the 19th century. It is not a recent or a novel power. The cloture rule was adopted 100 years ago. In other words, at any point in our history, a Senate minority could have attempted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. They had the tools. The rules permitted it. It would have only taken one Senator--just one. Yet it never happened for a simple reason: self-restraint. While written rules are important, sometimes the unwritten rules are even more so. Habits, customs, mores, standards, traditions, practices--these are the things that make the world go round, in the U.S. Senate no less than in the game of life. Our form of self-government depends critically on this form of self- government. Let's reconsider some recent nominees in light of these facts.

Justice Clarence Thomas was probably the most controversial nomination in my lifetime, perhaps ever. He was the subject of a vicious campaign of lies and partisan smears--a ``high-tech lynching'' in his words. He was confirmed in 1991 by a bare majority of 52-to-48. Yet Justice Thomas did not face a filibuster. Not a single Senator tried to block the up-or-down vote on his nomination--not Joe Biden, not Ted Kennedy, not Robert Byrd, not John Kerry--not one. Why? Any one Senator could have demanded a cloture vote, could have insisted on the so-called 60-vote standard and, perhaps, defeated Justice Thomas's nomination, but they did not because they respected two centuries of Senate tradition and custom.

It was likewise with Justice Sam Alito, whose nomination unquestionably shifted the Court's balance to the right in 2006. He, too, received fewer than 60 votes for confirmation--58 to be exact--but he received 72 votes for cloture. Here again, a large, bipartisan majority upheld the Senate tradition and custom against partisan filibusters of Supreme Court nominees. Even Judge Robert Bork, whose name is now used as a verb to mean the ``unfair partisan treatment of a judicial nominee,'' received an up-or-down vote in 1987. Yes, Judge Bork, who only received 42 votes for confirmation, did not face a partisan filibuster.

But let's not stop with Supreme Court nominations. Let's also consider other kinds of nominations so that we can understand just how radical is the Democratic minority's position.

To this day, there has never been a Cabinet nominee defeated by a partisan filibuster--never, not once, ever--in 228 years of Senate history. To this day, there has never been a trial court nominee defeated by a partisan filibuster--never, not once, ever--in 228 years of Senate history. Until 2003--just 14 years ago--there had never been an appellate court nominee defeated by a partisan filibuster.

That is just how strong the custom against filibusters was. It had never successfully happened in 214 years.

From our founding, through secession and civil war, through world wars, no matter how intense the feeling and how momentous the occasion, no matter how partisan the atmosphere, Senators always exercised self- restraint and allowed up-or-down votes on nominees for the Supreme Court, the court of appeals, the trial court, and the Cabinet.

But that changed in 2003, thanks in no small part to the senior Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, now the minority leader. With the help of leftwing law professors, he convinced extremists and the Democratic caucus to filibuster President Bush's appellate court nominees. For the first time in more than two centuries of the U.S. Senate, a radical minority defeated nominations with a partisan filibuster.

Why did the Senate start down this path? Some point to racial politics and Miguel Estrada, who was one of the most talented appellate litigators of his generation and President Bush's nominee to the DC Circuit. That court is often a proving ground for future Supreme Court nominees, and Mr. Estrada's confirmation might have enabled President Bush to nominate him, subsequently, to the Supreme Court. A Republican President appointing the first Hispanic Justice? Surely, the Democrats couldn't allow that.

Whatever the reason, there can be no doubt that the minority leader has set in motion a chain of events over the last 14 years and has brought us to the point he claims to deplore today. So the Democrats can spare me any hand-wringing about Senate traditions and customs.

The minority leader and like-minded extremists in the Democratic caucus can also spare us their exaggerated claims of the Republican obstruction of President Obama's judicial nominees. The Democrats, after all, were the ones who broke a 214-year-old tradition specifically to obstruct 10 of President Bush's nominees. Of course, the Republicans followed suit, though I would note that they have filibustered fewer judges over more years in their having been in the minority.

Put simply, the Democrats broke one of the Senate's oldest customs in 2003 so that they could filibuster Republican judges, and they subsequently filibustered more judges than did the Republicans. So it should come as no surprise that the Democrats took an even more radical step in 2013 when they used the so-called nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster for executive branch, trial court, and appellate court nominations. They broke the Senate rules by changing the Senate rules with a bare majority, not the effective two-thirds vote required under those rules.

The radical Democrats will accept no constraints on their will to power--when in power. Whatever it takes to pack the courts with liberal extremists or to block eminently qualified Republican nominees is exactly what they will do.

But don't take my word for it. Let's review what the Democrats were saying last year when they all believed they would be in power with Hillary Clinton as President and Democrats controlling the Senate. We did not hear much talk about the sacred 60-vote standard back then. On the contrary, the Democrats were promising to use the nuclear option again--this time to confirm a Democratic nominee to the Supreme Court.

Former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said:

I have set the Senate so, when I leave, we're going to be

able to get judges done with a majority. . . . If the

Republicans try to filibuster another circuit court judge,

but especially a Supreme Court Justice, I've told `em how,

and I've done it . . . in changing the rules of the Senate.

The junior Senator from Virginia, who would have been Vice President had Secretary Clinton won, said, quite frankly, about the Supreme Court vacancy:

If these guys think they are going to stonewall the filling

of that vacancy or other vacancies, then a Democratic Senate

majority will say, ``We're not going to let you thwart the

law.''

The junior Senator from Oregon warned ominously:

If there's deep abuse, we're going to have to consider

rules changes.

The senior Senator from New Mexico perhaps summed it up best of all when he said:

The Constitution does not give me the right to block a

qualified nominee no matter who is in the White House. . . .

A minority in the Senate should not be able to block

qualified nominees.

Do not think for a minute that the radical Democrats would not have made good on these threats. They have exercised little restraint on judicial nominations over the last 14 years. They have betrayed over 200 years of Senate tradition and custom. They would not start respecting those traditions now.

In reality, there were good reasons to respect and uphold the old Senate tradition against the filibusters of nominees before 2003.

First, our responsibility under the Constitution is not to choose but to advise and consent. A partisan filibuster would, essentially, encroach upon the President's power to nominate the person of his choice.

Second, nominations are not susceptible to negotiation. We cannot split someone down the middle, Solomon-like. We can vote yes or no. This is not the case with legislation, where differences can be split, compromises negotiated, and bipartisan consensus reached.

Third, when legislation fails to win 60 votes, it is not the end of the world; it can go back to the drawing board or be enacted through other legislative vehicles. But when nominations are long delayed or defeated, then real work is left undone, cases go unheard, disputes go unresolved, and the law remains unclear.

It would have been better for the Senate if the minority leader and the Democrats had recognized these things in 2003 and not started us down this path, the end of which we reach this week. It is rarely a good thing when an institution ignores or breaks its customs and traditions, its unwritten rules. They should have known better, and they should have acted better. But we have come to this point because the radical Democrats didn't act any better.

Now they propose to create a new standard never known to exist before: The Senate will not confirm a Republican President's nominees to the Supreme Court, because if the Democrats will filibuster Neil Gorsuch, then they will filibuster any Republican nominee. I will never accept this double standard, and neither will my colleagues. Republicans aren't going to be played for suckers and chumps.

After this week, the Senate will be back to where it always was and where it should have remained: Nominees brought to the floor ought to receive an up-or-down, simple-majority vote. And don't expect to hear regret from me about it.

There is no moral equivalence here between the two parties. To suggest any equivalence is to divorce action from its intent and aim. In 2003 and again at this moment, the radical Democrats overturned venerable Senate traditions. The Republicans are acting to restore them. Those who cannot see the difference, to borrow from Bill Buckley, would also see no difference between a man who pushes an old lady into the path of an oncoming bus and a man who pushes the old lady out of the path of the bus, because after all, both men push around old ladies.

So I am not regretful. I am not wracked with guilt. I am not anguished. I am really not even disappointed. There are no school yard taunts of ``you did it first.'' There are no charges of hypocrisy. There is no pox on both our houses. The Republicans are prepared to use a tool the Democrats first abused in 2013 to restore a 214-year-old tradition the Democrats first broke in 2003, and we are supposed to feel guilty? Please. The radical Democrats brought this all on themselves and on the Senate. The responsibility rests solely and squarely on their shoulders.

The minority leader is hoist with his own petard, the Senate is restored to a sensible, centuries-old tradition, and Judge Gorsuch is about to become Justice Gorsuch. Not a bad outcome. Not bad at all. Pretty good, in fact.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, when his nomination comes to the floor next week, I will vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. This is my first time voting on a Supreme Court nominee, and I don't take the decision lightly. It is a lifetime appointment, after all, and the Court's rulings have shaped our country's history--for good and for ill--and will continue to shape our future. But after reading Judge Gorsuch's writings, meeting with him in person, and listening to his testimony, I can say with confidence that it is not a hard call. I believe Judge Gorsuch will be a fine addition to the Supreme Court.

There is no denying Judge Gorsuch's distinctive qualifications. We all know his credentials: Columbia, Harvard law, and an Oxford doctorate to boot. He clerked for an appellate judge and two Supreme Court Justices. He had many years of experience in both private practice and in public service and, of course, over 10 years as an appellate judge. He possesses fine judicial temperament: highly erudite, highly accomplished, and highly regarded by those who know him best. It is no surprise, then, that the American Bar Association, in a unanimous vote, declared him ``well qualified'' for the job.

While I wouldn't outsource our responsibilities to any advocacy organization, I would note that the minority leader himself once said the ABA rating is ``the gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged.''

But, of course, Judge Gorsuch is not just filling any seat, but the seat once held by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia was a giant of American jurisprudence. Most Justices earn their place in history by writing opinions, giving voice to their colleagues, and speaking for the Court as a whole. Justice Scalia did that many times throughout his career, of course, but he did something more. He changed the way judges--both conservative and liberal--think about the law and defend their decisions. He reminded us all that a judge's job is to apply the law--including the Constitution, our most fundamental law--as written, to the case before him, not to rewrite it all together.

Adhering to the law, even when the judge doesn't like the result, is the greatest public service that a judge can render, because to respect the rule of law is ultimately to respect the rule of the people.

This is what Justice Scalia taught and what he inspired a whole generation of judges and lawyers to understand. As we prepare to fill his seat on the Supreme Court, let us also acknowledge that no man can fill his shoes. We honor the memory of Justice Scalia and we thank his wife, Maureen, and his whole family for sharing this great man with our country for so long.

Judge Gorsuch is a child of the Scalia generation. He has long advocated for and followed the originalist judicial craft--one rooted in the text, structure, and history of our Constitution, which is to say that he respects the rule of law and he respects the people. Whether defending the religious liberty of the Little Sisters of the Poor or the Fourth Amendment rights of a regular household, he has shown a profound respect for the Constitution. I also think he has demonstrated throughout his career a firm independence of thought. He has had his influences and his mentors, his promoters and his critics, but I believe he will be his own man--as he should be.

So I am pleased to announce my support for the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch. I look forward to his confirmation next week.

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have 7 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 March 30, 2017, in the President's room, S-216 in the Capitol, in order to vote on the nomination of George ``Sonny'' Perdue, of Georgia, to be Secretary of Agriculture.

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 30, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the nomination of Honorable Heather A. Wilson to be Secretary of the Air Force.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 30, 2017, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a hearing on Thursday, March 30, 2017, beginning at 2:30 p.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

Committees on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled The Road Ahead: U.S. Interests, Values, and the American People.

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 30, in between votes in S-216, to consider the following: Nomination of Alexander Acosta to serve as Secretary of Labor.

Select 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, March 30, 2017 from 10 a.m. for Panel I, and from 2 p.m. for Panel II, in room SD-106 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building to hold open hearings entitled Disinformation: A Primer in Russian Active Measures and Influence Campaigns.

Mr. President, I returned last week from the Middle East, where several colleagues and I spent the weekend meeting with leaders and security officials in Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel. As usual, the men and women who assisted us were consummate professionals, whether it was the U.S. Marines, Embassy personnel, or our own military escorts and congressional staff. They all did a superb job, and I want to extend to them my deepest thanks. I want to say a few words about what we learned while we were there.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, our allies told us they are more optimistic about their relationship with the United States now than they were under the last administration. If you thought diplomacy consisted simply of suave sophistication, I can understand your confusion. But among our allies, there is no confusion about what their interests are, how the United States shares them, and which country in the whole region threatens them most of all--Iran. Once you realize that, it is not so hard to understand their morale boost. Do they watch what we say? Yes, of course, very carefully. But they watch even more carefully what we do, and even though our foreign policy was cloaked in ``pretty words'' over the last 8 years, they see the difference in leadership as clear as day. The last President coddled Iran, and this President is confronting Iran.

Every conversation we had drove home this point: Iran is the single most destabilizing force in the Middle East. That is because it is more than a regional power, it is a revolutionary power. The regime in Tehran is not satisfied with finding good trading partners or even bullying other countries into proper neighborly deference. Big countries throw their weight around all the time, after all. No, what is different about this regime is that it is not trying to create clients; it is trying to create clones. It wants to expand its influence by subverting legitimate governments in places such as Yemen and Lebanon and replacing them with radical regimes. Countries that it can't subvert, it tries to destroy, like our friend Israel. And its aggressive sectarian ideology drives Sunni Muslims into the arms of extremist groups like the Islamic State.

There is no getting around the fact that in the Middle East, the answer to most questions is Iran, and our allies have told me repeatedly in recent months that they need our help to confront Tehran's campaign of imperial aggression.

In Lebanon, I am happy to say there are some signs of hope. The new Prime Minister, Sa'ad Hariri, has formed a government and is purportedly on the verge of approving a budget--the first of its kind since 2005. For years, the Lebanese Government has struggled with the growing influence of Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, members of which are on trial for carrying out the assassination of the Prime Minister's father, Rafic, in 2005. But now that Hezbollah is committed to the war in Syria, the Lebanese Government has an opportunity to take control of its border, its army, and its governing institutions, free of their terrorist influence. We should take all prudent steps to support Lebanon as it strives to create security and stability for its own people and its neighbors.

Then there is Jordan, which for so long has been a relative island of calm in a tumultuous region. The Hashemite monarchy has been a faithful friend to America for years, but now, for the first time in recent history, Jordan faces a hostile, aggressive power on its borders--ISIS. It is also under an immense strain as it deals with hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees living in its territory. Today, Jordan spends up to 25 percent of its budget on helping refugees. We need to continue helping this bulwark of stability stand against the forces of Islamic extremism by sharing intelligence, helping train police and counterterrorism forces, and partnering in the fight against ISIS.

Finally, there is Israel, which it is no secret that the regime in Tehran has vowed to destroy. While we were overseas, Israeli warplanes struck deep into the heart of Syrian territory. They were targeting a convoy of advanced missiles bound for Hezbollah. In a serious escalation, Syria fired missiles not

only at Israeli aircraft but at Israeli territory, one of which was intercepted by the Arrow 2 missile defense system. This incident goes to show just how important our aid is to protecting Israel's security and how important Israel is to confronting Iranian-sponsored aggression. We must continue to support Israel and its development of advanced missile defense systems.

I am happy to report that all three of our allies continue to seek ever-closer friendship with the United States. They are optimistic about their ability to work together under the new administration, and they sincerely appreciate everything our country has done for them.

I saw for myself a reminder of this country's sacrifice at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. There, you will find a memorial that is dedicated to the 241 Americans who died in the terrorist bombing of our Marine barracks in 1983. That atrocity was committed by Hezbollah, if anyone needed a reminder as to why we fight alongside our allies against the Iran-Hezbollah-Syria axis in the contest of supremacy in the Middle East.

If our trip taught us anything, it was that our allies will not give up the fight but that it will take American leadership to stop Iran's campaign of imperial aggression.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding rule XXII, all postcloture time on Executive Calendar No. 1, the Montenegro treaty, be expired; that all pending amendments be withdrawn, the resolution of ratification be reported, and the Senate vote on the resolution of ratification with no intervening action or debate; and that if the resolution of ratification is agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

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

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

Mr. President, I recently read a story in the Wall Street Journal that I thought was so alarming it demanded action. Here is the headline: ``Marathon Pharmaceuticals to Charge $89,000 for Muscular Dystrophy Drug After 70-Fold Increase.''

Yes, that is $89,000 a year, and, yes, that is a 70-fold increase-- 70-fold, as in 7,000 percent.

For those of you who have not read the article, here is the story. There is a rare disease called Duchenne muscular dystrophy. It affects about 12,000 young men in the United States. Most of them, unfortunately, end up dying in their twenties and thirties because of it.

We don't have a cure yet for Duchenne. Until recently, there was not even a treatment with FDA approval. So, for many years, patients and parents have been importing a drug called deflazacort, a steroid, from other countries. Even though it is not a cure, it at least helps treat symptoms and has been a welcome relief to many families.

Well, technically it is illegal to import a drug that doesn't have FDA approval. But there is a catch. The FDA does not quite enforce the ban against all unapproved drugs. In fact, it has issued regulatory guidance saying that you can get an exemption and buy an unapproved drug from overseas if you meet five conditions. First, you have to have a serious illness for which there is no other treatment available. Second, you can't sell the drug. Third, you can't pose an unreasonable risk to your health. Fourth, it has to be for you and you alone. Fifth, you can't buy more than a 3-month supply.

All of that sounds fair enough. But if someone comes along and gets FDA approval for their version of the exact same drug, the exact same chemical composition of the drug that is being imported, then you cannot buy it overseas anymore. That is exactly what happened here.

This was not a new drug. This was not a medical breakthrough. This was not a scientific advance. This was, plain and simple, an arbitrage opportunity. Other people had already gone to the trouble of making a drug that worked, but if you paid the expenses of getting FDA approval, you would essentially buy for yourself monopoly pricing power. That is what other companies missed, and now, to cover the costs of going through that approval process, Marathon is increasing the price from roughly $1,500 a year to $89,000 a year.

I don't think it is an overstatement to say that this turn of events is nothing short of outrageous. It defeats the very purposes of our FDA laws. The reason we offer people the chance to create a monopoly is to encourage innovation and medical breakthroughs, to generate new drugs that are going to solve diseases or illnesses.

What we are saying is, if you go to the pain and expense of developing a new treatment, we will give you the sole rights to sell it for a number of years so you can recover your costs, and, therefore, we will encourage more medical breakthroughs to alleviate the pain and suffering of the American people. In other words, monopoly rights are not merit badges. They are not a reward for business smarts. They are supposed to serve the interests of patients. They are supposed to expand access to treatment. But in this case, what we see in our system is, in fact, restricting access and driving up the price for that coverage.

I understand that many people with Duchenne are happy that Marathon has done this because now that the drug has FDA approval, insurance companies will likely cover it--unlike before when people had to pay out of pocket, meaning that poor kids didn't get access to deflazacort, whereas upper middle-class and rich kids typically did.

I also know that Marathon has promised to increase spending on research on a new drug and to help people of limited means afford that treatment. That, too, is all to the good.

I am not casting aspersions on anyone's motives here, but let's be real. Someone has to pay the full price of this drug at $89,000 a year. We have a drug that used to be available for $1,500 a year, and now it is $89,000 a year. Whatever happened, that is a systemwide failure. We as a Congress have to address it.

There is simply no getting around the fact that this story should never have been written in the first place because it should have never happened in the first place. We should be channeling peoples' ambition and entrepreneurial spirit into finding cures, not finding new and clever ways to make a profit. That is what our food and drug laws are designed to do. That is what they have clearly failed to do in this instance.

I just want to say that I am not going to let this story disappear. I am going to work with my colleagues to find a legislative solution to this mess and promote affordable, high-quality healthcare for all, for all families whose young children suffer from Duchenne and for every other orphan disease that has drugs that can be used for treatment and right now are being blocked from the market or for which we are paying way too much money as a society.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, it is hard to overstate the amount of distrust there is between rural America and the EPA.

I represent the State of Arkansas, where about 70,000 of our citizens are farmers. Agriculture is our largest industry, adding about $16 billion to our economy every year. But even those members--big as they are--can't give you a full appreciation of just how important the land is to our people. Sure, they make a living off it, but farming isn't just an ``industry'' to us--it is not just another statistical category like ``nondurable goods manufacturing.'' It is a way of life. The people of Arkansas cultivate the land. They nurture it. They teach their children how to care for it. These are people who get up at 5 a.m. to milk the cows. They have had these farms in their families for generations. They pass on the land--and the values they have learned along with it. They believe in the EPA's mission of preserving a healthy environment just as much as anyone.

Yes, they are stewards of the earth, these men and women, yet the EPA too often treats them as criminals. In the last 8 years alone, the EPA has been treating their property rights more like a form of parole. It has passed sweeping regulations that presume to tell farmers when they can plant and how often they can run a tractor. It has declared something as tiny as a mud puddle on a family farm as a ``navigable water''--thus under the EPA's jurisdiction it has put on a show of soliciting ``feedback'' from the people who have to live under its rules, while cavalierly dismissing most of their concerns, and all the while pursuing an activist agenda, whether through the Clean Power Plan or the waters of the United States rule, it has failed to fulfill its core mission: keeping our people safe. Just remember, the EPA helped bring criminal charges and a $15,000 fine against a North Carolina farm owner who accidentally spilled cow dung into a river; yet when it caused the wastewater spill into the Animas River, it stalled and withheld important information from investigators. If a company had acted like the EPA, it would likely have faced criminal charges-- brought about by the EPA.

It is this state of affairs that our next EPA Administrator will inherit, and I want to take this opportunity to say President's Trump nominee, Scott Pruitt, has my support.

I think he is especially qualified to lead the Agency at this time because he comes from rural America himself. As the attorney general of Oklahoma, he fought the EPA's overreach in court more than half a dozen times. I believe he understands that Arkansas farmers and the American people know the needs of their land far better than Washington bureaucrats do. When I met with him a few weeks ago, we discussed the impact EPA regulations are having on Arkansas farms, businesses, and energy companies. We also talked about Fort Smith's issues with an inflexible EPA consent decree. It was clear from our conversation he knew environmental law backwards and forwards, but he also had something else: a real-world appreciation of the burden that heavy- handed regulations put on our farmers and on rural America.

I believe Scott Pruitt understands we can have both a robust economy and a healthy environment. I believe he will pull back the EPA's excesses and focus on its core mission. I believe, under his leadership, the EPA can begin to rebuild the trust it has lost with rural America, the trust that is necessary for it to achieve its goals. And so, for all of these reasons, I will be voting to confirm.

Mr. President, our Tax Code is a mess. No one voted for it, no one wants it, and no one likes it. I have said many times we should eliminate all of the special interest loopholes in the code and use that money to cut taxes for everyone, including American businesses. We want to encourage them to invest, grow, and create more jobs right here in America.

I know my colleagues are working on a tax bill, and I want to stress how much I support their efforts. I will, of course, withhold judgment on any proposal until I see the final text, but I also want to say today, I have reservations about one idea that is being considered. It is called a border adjustment tax. It sounds like something from Orwell's Newspeak.

Here is how it would work. We would cut taxes for corporations. To make up for the lost revenue, we would tax businesses whenever they bought something from another country. For instance, every time Ford bought an auto part from Canada, it would pay a 20-percent tax or every time your local grocery store bought bananas from Guatemala, it would pay a 20-percent tax. Whatever money businesses made from selling their products in other countries would be exempt. In other words, what all this would amount to is a 20-percent tax on imports. The proponents of this tax contend it would stop businesses from leaving our country because right now some are moving overseas to avoid paying our corporate tax rate, which is the highest in the modern industrial world. Under this proposal, it would not matter where you put your headquarters, you would be taxed according to what you bought, not where you put down your stake.

The hope is, this arrangement would mean more headquarters, more factories and the jobs that come with them staying right here in America, which of course is a desirable goal, no doubt, but I am not at all convinced this is the best way to do it. Consider this. It is estimated that this one change alone would produce something like $100 billion a year in additional tax revenue. That is a lot of money, and someone has to pay for it. I will tell you exactly who is going to pay: working Americans who have been struggling for decades. A tax on imports is a tax on things working folks buy every single day. I am not talking about caviar and champagne. I am talking about T-shirts, jeans, shoes, baby clothes, toys, and groceries.

I have heard from thousands of Arkansans who are already struggling just to get by. Why would we make the stuff they get at Walmart more expensive? Its defenders say the tax will not increase the cost of imports. What will happen, they say, is our exports will be cheaper because we no longer tax them so then more people overseas will buy our exports from us, which means the dollar itself will increase in value. That means imports will not be expensive because you will be able to buy them with a stronger dollar. So even with the tax added on, you will still come out right where you were before.

This logic reminds me of Orwell again: Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them. This is a theory wrapped in speculation inside a guess. Nobody knows for sure what will happen. No one can know for sure because currency markets fluctuate daily based on millions of decisions and events. Just because an economist slaps an equation on a blackboard does not make it real so I am more than a little concerned these predictions will not pan out.

As the old joke goes, after all, economists have predicted nine of the last five recessions. But if that happens, it will not be economists and intellectuals and politicians in Washington and New York left holding the bag; working Americans will get stiffed again.

Finally, I want to say a word about jobs. One of the biggest reasons for fixing the Tax Code is that it would help create more jobs, but if we increase the cost of goods, people obviously can't buy as much, which will hurt retail sales and retail jobs too. Retail companies are the largest private sector employers in almost every State. Are we really going to impose a huge tax on the livelihood of so many Americans and say: Oh, don't worry. It will all work out in the end.

We have to take a hard look at this proposal right now. Therefore, while I support fundamental tax reform and commit to reserve judgment on any final bill until I read it, today I want to put on the record my serious concerns about a border adjustment tax. Many other Senators share those concerns. We most certainly will not keep our powder dry and see working American's railroaded with a precooked deal that raises their taxes and increases the price of the stuff they buy every single day.

It is February 15. By law, the President is required to submit a budget to Congress by the first Monday of this month. That was over a week ago. Now, being a new administration, we expect him to be a few weeks late as has typically happened in recent times. The difference this year, though, is that President Trump still does not have a budget director. We are 4 weeks into his Presidency, and we are only just now getting around to confirming his nominee.

For those of you keeping score at home, that is the longest delay in recent history. Every one of the last six Presidents had their budget director confirmed by a week's time--as in 7 days. In other words, what we are seeing is a deliberate act of obstruction. Here is the real problem. We have serious work to do. It is that much more difficult for the President to do his job when all he has is a headless horseman bureaucracy.

Senate Democrats might consider this payback. They might consider it their chance to audition for the 2020 Presidential primary, but the American people are the ones paying the price for this obstruction.

I want to say again, this is not a game. This is not a protest. This is our job. This is what the American people sent us to do. It is time we got down to business. In that spirit, I want to say a few words in support of the President's

nominee for the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney. I don't have to cite or recite Mick's biography for many of you.

He has been representing the good people of South Carolina's Fifth District in the House of Representatives for more than 6 years now. Before that, he led an impressive career as what he called a serial entrepreneur, starting four different businesses. I hear some of them may have even succeeded.

He has worked in fields as varied as law, real estate, homebuilding, and restaurants. He is highly educated and very accomplished. I would like to point out, he is a friend of mine, a trusted confidant, someone whose advice and counsel I have often sought.

I can say with confidence, he will serve President Trump and the American people with dedication and distinction. I believe Mick will bring a needed voice to the President's Cabinet, a voice for fiscal responsibility after so many years of irresponsible sky-is-the-limit spending.

All that experience in the real economy gives him something more than a lengthy resume. He knows from personal experience what it takes to create jobs and create opportunities out of almost nothing. He knows the self-discipline it takes, the hard work, the perseverance. He knows what Americans have to go through every day just to earn an honest dollar. That is why he has been so protective of every taxpayer dollar ever put in his care. That is the kind of man we need as our next OMB Director.

It is only when Washington appreciates what goes into making all of those taxpayer dollars that it will show the taxpayers the respect they deserve. I want to express my strong support for the next Director of the Office of Management and Budget, my friend, Mick Mulvaney.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I have five 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 armed services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 9, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.

committee on foreign relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 9, 2017, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``The United States, The Russian Federation and the Challenges Ahead.''

committee on the judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 9, 2017, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

select 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, February 9, 2017, from 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building.

subcommittee on regulatory affairs and federal management

The Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 9, 2017, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Empowering Managers: Ideas for a More Effective Federal Workforce.''

Mr. President, as I said before, we should not be holding up any of the President's nominees. There is far too much work to be done, but I think that is especially true for the man whose nomination is before us today, the next Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Tom Price, who I am happy to say has my full support.

It is especially important that we confirm Dr. Price because, as we all know, our health care has undergone some serious turmoil as of late. This was undoubtedly caused, at least in part, by the rolling calamity of ObamaCare. You can step back and you survey the wreckage, and it is sobering to see what that law has left in its wake: double- digit premium hikes, very high deductibles, and millions of canceled plans.

For all the fanfare over the law's passage, and all the arguments that followed, it seems we have forgotten the person who matters the most, the patient. That is what the next HHS Secretary is facing, a Herculean or perhaps you might say a Humpty-Dumpty-like task of picking up the pieces and rebuilding our health care system from the ground up.

So as we consider this nomination, I think it is appropriate to ask ourselves: If we need someone who will focus on the needs of patients, why not pick a doctor? Dr. Price was an orthopedic surgeon in private practice for nearly 20 years. He taught and trained young doctors personally. So when he hears the phrase ``quality, affordable, personalized care,'' it is not an abstract notion to him. It is not something he dreamed up in the Halls of Congress because he himself has provided just that kind of care to real people.

When we repeal and replace ObamaCare, we have to avoid the kind of thinking that gave rise to it. We need someone with on-the-ground understanding of what it takes to care for patients, someone who knows what it is like to stand at a bedside with a patient comforting her in a confusing and frightful moment.

Dr. Tom Price is that man. Tom Price is also my friend. We served together in the House of Representatives. He is a good man. That is why, during his time in public service, he has earned the respect of his colleagues as he has worked his way up the ranks: chairman of the Republican study committee, chairman of the House Republican policy committee, and, most recently, chairman of the House Budget Committee.

He has studied our health care system from top to bottom, and he is no stranger to the health care battles the last 8 years. You could say his chief qualification for the job of replacing ObamaCare is he had the good sense to oppose it in the first place, but Tom Price did not just vote no.

Contrary to what you have heard from the Democrats, he also offered his own alternative, the Empowering Patients First Act. You may or may not like that bill, but I think you have to admire that he was willing to make a serious proposal. That is the kind of leadership we need at the Department of Health and Human Services.

I want to express my support for Tom Price's nomination to be the next Secretary of Health and Human Services. I urge all Senators to vote for his confirmation.

I yield the floor.