Vote the presiding officer are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote . If not, the are yeas are 89. The nays are 1. The nomination is confirmed. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senates actions and the senate will resume legislative session. Mr. Thune mr. President. The presiding officer the majority whip. Mr. Thune mr. President , i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Thune mr. President , yesterday we confirmed with two more excellent judges here in the senate. Despite democratic obstruction we continue moving forward on confirming nominees to the federal bench. Some of our democratic colleagues criticized the amount of time the senate spends on judges. Well, mr. President , we have spent a substantial amount of time on judges because weve had to. Back in the day most of the judicial nominees were considering would have been confirmed without the timeconsuming cloture vote process. By this point in president obamas first time republicans required cloture votes on just three, three of president obamas judicial nominees. Well, lets compare that to today. As of july 24, yesterday, democrats have required cloture votes on a staggering 94 judicial nominees. 94, mr. President , to 3 at this same point under president obama. Its not because theyre fiercefully opposed to all these nominees. In fact again and again democrats have turned around and voted for the very same judges that they delayed. Just a couple of weeks ago here in the senate we confirmed three district judge by huge bipartisan margins. 7815, 8014, 8510. Clearly these were not nominees that democrats bitterly opened opened opposed and democrats insisted on the same cloture vote tactic they used with so many nominees. I too am frustrated we had to spend a lot of time on judges. I miss the days when uncontroversial nominees were passed without cloture votes. But if my democrat colleagues are going to insist on delaying the vast amount of nominations were going to have to keep spending time on judges because, lets remember, were not doing these nominees for fun. This is part of our job. And we are working to fill a substantial number of vacancies on the federal bench. Despite the senates efforts, the vacancy rate currently stands at 13. 8 , higher than the rates faced by president obama, president george w. Bush, and president clinton at this point in their first terms. Vacancies on the federal bench have consequences, primarily they result in long waits to get cases heard, which serves nobody. It would be nice if my colleagues across the aisle would abandon their delaying tactics on noncontroversial nominees and speed up the process of filling these vacancies. But regardless, regardless, mr. President , republicans will continue moving forward with judicial nominees. And im very proud of the judges that were confirming. Were putting Excellent Federal judges on the bench. Were committed to upholding the law. Now that sounds like a pretty obvious requirement for a judge, mr. President , a commitment to upholding the law. But too often it seems like many on the left would prefer activist judges who act as super legislators rewriting laws they disagree with when the law doesnt reach the result that fits with democrats political opinions. But those kinds of judges, judges who move beyond the law when the law doesnt line up with their political agenda, are not a good thing for anybody. Sure, it might seem nice when an activist judge who shares your political opinions reaches outside the plain meaning of the statute and rules for your preferred outcome. But what happens when that same judge reaches beyond the law to your detriment . What protections do you have if the law is no longer the highest authority . The answer is none. You dont have any protection. Because at that point the judge, not the law, has become Supreme Authority and you are at the mercy of his or her personal opinions. Security, justice, equality under law, these principles can only be maintained as long as we have judges who are committed to upholding the law as it is written and not as they would like it to be. If we have bad laws, we can and should change them. But any changes should be made by the peoples elected representatives as our constitution dictates. They should not be made by unelected judges. Judges are meant to interpret the law, not make it. And im proud that we have been putting judges on the bench who will uphold the rule of law in this country by interpreting the law as it is written regardless of their personal opinions. Mr. President , as i said earlier, we confirmed two excellent judicial nominees this week. Unfortunately one ran into democrat opposition during the confirmation process because he was catholic. Thats right. Apparently the fact that he takes his faith seriously enoug. The presiding officer if the senator would suspend. Would the senate be in order. Take your conversations outside of the chamber. The senator from south dakota. Mr. Thune apparently the fact that he takes his faith seriously enough to participate in a catholic charitable group, the knights of columbus, is enough to make him suspect as a judge. Mr. President , i had hoped we were done with democrats flirtation with religious tests for Public Office when they questioned the fitness of judge Amy Coney Barrett because she takes her catholic faith seriously. But apparently democrats think its perfectly legitimate to suggest that you cant be both a person of faith and a nominee for the United States judiciary. Let me just remind my colleagues what article 1 of the constitution has to say about that. This is from article 6, quote, quo no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States, end quote. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. As deeply troubling its deeply troubling we have democrats in the United States senate suggesting that religious faith disqualifies you from Public Office. And if democrats are using their objections to these candidates religious faith as cover for the fact that democrats dont want to confirm anyone who doesnt share their most extreme political opinions, thats deeply troubling too. Mr. President , religious freedom is a bedrock principle of this nation. Our founders considered it so important that it is the very first freedom mentioned in the bill of rights. And by freedom of religion, they didnt mean its okay to pray, to have religious beliefs, or if you do it quietly inside your home. They meant freedom to practice your faith in the public square, even if that means having different political opinions from democrats. I hope this judge is the last nominee who will have his fit for Public Office questioned simply because he chooses to live out his faith. I was glad to vote to confirm him yesterday, and i look forward to confirming more qualified judicial nominees in the near future, and i hope, mr. President , the democrats will drop their delaying tactics and join us as we work to fill these important vacancies on the federal bench. Mr. President , i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call quorum call quorum call quorum call quorum call mr. Cornyn mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from texas. Mr. Cornyn mr. President , id ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Cornyn mr. President , this morning the Senate Finance committee marked up a legislative package designed to address the high Prescription Drug costs that have become a burden to americans of all ages. This is part of a bipartisan effort to make targeted reforms to our Health Care System to lower costs for patients and taxpayers without interfering with the free market or the beneficial innovation that comes from it. The health, education, labor and Pensions Committee and Judiciary Committee last month passed legislative packages to support this goal, and this morning the finance committee passed a package called the Prescription Drug pricing reduction act. This legislation looks specifically at reducing Prescription Drug prices, particularly outofpocket costs for seniors and children through medicare and medicaid reforms. Ive heard a lot from my constituents in texas about the impact of these high costs. Bob from san angelo told me he and his wife both have Medicare Part d and are struggling to stretch their Retirement Income far enough to cover the expenses for their Prescription Drugs. He told me that each month they pay nearly 800 for medicare and medicare supplements. On top of that, theyre strapped with high Prescription Drug costs. In the first four and a half months of this year, bob said they spent more than 1,60 on his wifes medication alone. For seniors living on a fixed income, these high costs can simply be untenable. Then theres michael, another one of my constituents, who told me about his continued struggle to cover the cost of his medication. He said it feels like were being taken advantage of because they know we have to have these drugs. These individuals have been paying into this system for decades and its high time we look at ways to reduce the financial strain and provide some relief. Now coming up with policies that will lower outofpocket costs is not easy. The whole drug pricing regime is enormously complex and, frankly, its opaque, particularly the relationships between pharmacy benefit managers and the drug manufacturers. But we need to work hard at this effort to lower costs in medicare and medicaid and to increase the high cost of Prescription Drugs, even in the commercial markets. I appreciate the commitment of chairman grassley and Ranking Member wyden to identify potential reforms, and i believe the package that was voted out of the finance committee this morning is a step in the right direction. That is not a statement of endorsement of the legislation as it came out of the committee. A lot of work needs to be done, and be particularly a lot of work to reconcile the different approaches of the different committees, the health, education, labor, and Pensions Committee, and the Judiciary Committee. Because the last thing we want to do is go through this arduous , complex legislative exercise only to find out that we failed to lower outofpocket costs for american consumers, or that weve introduced some other unintended consequence that makes things work and not better. The journey a drug takes from research and development to manufacturing to pharmacy shelves and eventually into our medicine cabinets is complicated. Once a consumer has purchased a drug, figuring out who gets what part of each dollar requires, i was going to say requires a ph. D. , but it requires even more than that because you may need to hire an exf. B. I. Agent to try to track down what percentage of each dollar each of the players in the Prescription Drug field actually gets. S as a consumer thats particularly alarming because we dont have any idea whether were paying a fair price or not, who is profiting or whether people are doing things that benefit their bottom line but dont actually add value to the system and ultimately end up costing consumers more out of pocket. When it comes to medicare and medicaid, its doubly concerning because these prescriptions are being in most cases, at least partially subsidized by taxpayer dollars. So we need to shine a bright light on the reasons behind these high costs and price increases to ensure that patients arent being gouged and that the government, in other words, taxpayers, arent being overcharged. Thats one of the primary goals of this legislation. It would require manufacturers to report information about price increases to the department of health and Human Services as part of that transparency effort. It also looks, as i suggested a moment ago, at the role of pharmacy benefit managers which are the intermediaries linking manufacturers to consumers. They negotiate with the manufacturers to secure rebates which create a net price. But it doesnt appear that by and large this actually flows to the consumer or the patient. Frequently its used, were told, to keep premiums lower by the health plans, but we dont know that for sure because trying to get access to the information is really, really challenging. And the size of the rebate could mean the dimps between a drug the difference between a drug being covered by insurance or not. By the way, rebates dont help you at all for your copay or for your deductible. We know in these days where, for example, the Affordable Care act, for Many Americans has resulted in skyhigh deductibles and high premiums. That means consumers have to pick up more of the cost at the list price, not tenet price which is negotiated by the pharmaceutical benefit managers working together with the health care plans. So i find it very strange that as big a role as the pharmacy benefit managers play, we know very little about how they operate or whether they all operate exactly the same or differently. Legislation would require pharmacy benefit managers to disclose details of the discounts or rebates they receive and finally pull back that cloak of secrecy. I do, mr. President , have concerns about one portion of the bill that voted, that was voted out of the finance committee this morning which would require manufacturers to pay a rebate on drug price increases that are higher than the rate of inflation. Now the Congressional Budget Office has estimated the inflation rebate will save 50 billion for medicare. They claim it will lower outofpocket costs for beneficiaries by 7 billion and lower premiums by 4 billion. Now i asked the head of c. B. O. This morning, i said, well, if everybody saves money, who ends up paying more money . Well, it basically comes out of the hide of the manufacturer, which really speaks to my other major concern, and that is that the federal government not get into a position where we are setting prices. Because we know that when you institute price controls on a commodity, and particularly if youre the federal government, when you try to negotiate with somebody, its not a level playing field. When you negotiate with somebody as the federal government, youre literally do it with a gun to their head, or figuratively do it with a gun to their head. So its not a normal give and take negotiation. And what happens with price controls, ultimately is it creates scarcity because at some point the manufacturer, the producer of that commodity will say im not going to produce that at that controlled price by the government. So this is a serious concern. C. B. O. Also estimates that this rebate would reduce costs for Prescription Drug benefits offered by commercial insurance plans, although we dont have a final score by c. B. O. This is just a preliminary plan. Ill share with you an observation made by senator bob bennett of utah years ago. He said one thing i can always tell you about c. B. O. Scores is theyre always wrong. I cant tell you if theyre too high or too low but this is part of the complexity of trying to predict the future and how Human Behavior will affect their calculations and analysis, and sometimes they get it right and sometimes they get it wrong. So despite the encouraging estimates, many members of the committee had significant concerns this policy could lead to higher launch prices or higher outofpocket spending. So this morning in the markup i supported an amendment by our friend from pennsylvania, senator toomey, that would have removed this inflation rebate penalty. Unfortunately it failed on a tie vote, something i dont think ive seen before where 14 senators voted for it and 14 voted against it. But that means the amendment failed. So heres the problem. Theres a delicate balance between preventing price increases, something we would all like to do, and still preserving the marketbased approach that has made partd such an overwhelming success. It actually is a Government Program that worked better, that works better than we thought it would when it was passed. So i think we need more input before this bill comes to the floor. Theres a lot of work yet to do. As the old adage goes, anything worth doing is worth doing right, and we better get this right. I think therell be quite a price to be paid if we undertake this huge exercise and end up failing to reduce consumers outofpocket costs, or create more problems as a result of unintended consequences. Providing our seniors peace of mind when it comes to their Health Care Costs is certainly worth doing right. So i believe we need to continue refining this proposal to strike a better balance and effectively deliver on our promises. Its important we not rush this process. There is no artificial deadline. There shouldnt be. Thats why the senate was created, to force deliberation in a body of 100 senators with challenging rules that get things actually to the president s desk for a signature. But what it should do is force deliberation and force us to do our due diligence, to make sure we are not creating more problems or failing to accomplish our goal. I told members of the committee this morning that i dont think this bill, as written, is anywhere near ready to be considered on the floor. I asked the chairman and the Ranking Member to commit to continue working with members before this does come to the floor, and i was glad that both of them agreed to do so. So while i believe we are making some progress, we better be very, very careful, and we shouldnt impose on ourselves any artificial deadlines in order to get this thing done and perhaps get it done badly. So, mr. President , thank you, and i yield the floor. Mr. Lee madam president . The presiding officer the senator from utah. Mr. Lee mr. President , there is a quote thats long been attributed to st. Augustine, who during his conversion to christianity famously uttered a prayer asking, lord, help me be chased, grant knee grasstity, but not yet. The idea behind this is as old as human nature itself, which is that its easier to have the thought of doing something later than to do that thing now, especially when its a difficult task. Its one of the reasons why new years resolutions often result in an abrupt increase in gym enrollments and memberships. People develop new years resolutions. They decide theyre going to lose weight, theyre going to exercise more, theyre going to eat less, and then it becomes more difficult as time goes by and perhaps over time some of them might find it easier to say, well, ill lose weight later in the year, after starting the new year off to a good start, they might say, well, ill lose more weight in the last half of the year, later in the year, it might occur to them that theyll lose more weight in the last two months of the year. Regardless, as they continue to delay that moment, the task doesnt get easier; it often gets harder. The budget and spending and debt limit deal that was announceed earlier this year reminds me a little bit of this aspect of human nature. Its understandable why this happens. Its especially understandable why it happens in a place where people are elected, where people want to be liked, where supporting greater Government Spending often results in praise. And calling for even a mild tapping on the brakes often results in rather severe criticism in the press, even by ones own constituents. That doesnt mean that we can pretend things are different than they really are. So, yeah, you can suspend the debt ceiling. You can waive budget rules. But you cant suspend or waive or ignore the laws of mathematics. We have to remember that at a time when were talking about significant expansion of the role of the federal government, when were talking about suspending the debt ceiling for an additional two years, when were talking about paving the way for us to spend a whole lot more money through the federal government than we would otherwise spend, this is occurring at a time when americans are already required to work many weeks, in many cases many months out of every year just to pay their federal taxes. In addition to this, after that, theyre told, by the way, thats not enough. Its not nearly enough. Because for a long time, the federal government has been spending a lot more money than it takes in. Lately, its been to the tune of many hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Its expected that we will soon see a moment where notwithstanding recordbreaking tax revenues weve never in our history brought in more money or as much money into the federal governments coffers than we are bringing in right now. Notwithstanding those record levels and in spite of the fact that were at the very top of the business cycle, weve got near recordlow unemployment in the range of roughly 4 or a little below, which is, were told by economists, basically full employment in america; at a time when all these things seem to be going our way, were enjoying a period of relative peace in the world and in our country, and yet weve got recordbreaking deficits. And this budget and debt ceiling deal would expand the path, would pave the path for even more of that. It begs the question, if we cant control spending now when the economy is performing about as well as it possibly can, then when can we . To borrow a phrase from john f. Kennedy, if not us, who . If not now, when . Lets talk for a minute about americas history with expanding its debt limit, expanding its debt footprint. What we see through this chart that ive got here to my right is that in a number of during a number of periods of crisis in american history, we have accumulated more debt; that is, a morethanaverage amount of debt as a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product. We see various peaks, most of them following and brought about as a result of a major war; in some cases some other type of crisis. We have the revolutionary war. It was mercilessly fought and won. Our Gross Domestic Product went down. It peaked a little bit later when we had to fight the war of 1812. We won that war, too. Then a percent of our g. D. P. Went down. It remained low. Then for many decades, when we fought the civil war, it peaked again. It went back to close to 40 of our Gross Domestic Product. The civil war ended. It went back down. It peaked again at world war i, then went back down. Peaked it a very significant degree at world war ii and then promptly wept back down. See, through this period of time following world war ii, the late 1940s and into the 150s, we had a into the 1950s, we had a whole lot of revenue coming in, we werent accumulating new debt and we were paying off our debt at the same time that our economy was expanding. So, consequently, even though every year didnt result in a balanced budget, our debt held by the public as a federal government went down as a percentage of of our Gross Domestic Product. But in each of these instances, when i described, there was a reason, there was a distinct, unmistakable finite reason why these things happened. And once those reasons went away, once we won the wars in question, our debt as a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product that is, the volume of Economic Activity in america went back down. We saw a couple of other peaks. We had the gulf war and a recession in roughly the same period that resulted in an increase of debt as a percentage of g. D. P. That war ended, and that recession went away, and it went back down. Then Something Interesting has been happening. In the last few years, as we came out of the great recession, as weve enjoyed a very significant historic recovery in our economy, the economy has been expanding, jobs abound, the economy in which we now live has more people employed in basically every demographic than a few years ago we would have considered likely. And yet notwithstanding that fact, our debt as a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product continues to go up. Now, this graph in some ways even understates the matter relative to where we were at world war ii. We hit the peak during world war ii at about i believe 106 , 107 of Gross Domestic Product. Were not quite to that level today. But if you include in this figure not only the debt held by the public that is, the debt held by those who purchase u. S. Security bonds, u. S. Treasury instruments generally if you add to that the socalled intragovernmental debt, the i. O. U. s the federal government has written to Social Security and medicare to try to make up for funds that Congress Wants access to but doesnt have were actually we will over 100 in terms of our debttog. D. P. Ratio. In other words, were at about where we were at the peak of the crisis we were addressing around world war ii. It begs the question, mr. President when does this end . How does this end . Theres not a world war in which were involved right now. Were experiencing relative peace. Theres not a recession. Woulder in the middle of one of the greatest were in the middle of one of the greatest peacetime economic recoveries this land has ever seen. So if not us, then who . And if not now, then when . But why is it that we now have to suspend our debt ceiling in order to essentially transfer to younger americans, to subsequent generations the responsibility of financing the government that we have today . One can easily defend those things when youre talking about the survival of a nation, when youre talking about a world war or youre talking about a war in which our nations survival is at stake. Were not involved in any such effort right now. Were involved in some conflicts around the world, but those are not really whats driving this. Whats driving in is that weve got a government thats too big and too expensive. This means a lot of things to a lot of people. Its something that should weigh on every american seriously. I believe that it weighs especially heavy heavily on younger americans, not just younger americans themselves but people who have children and grandchildren. I represent a state with the lowest median age in the entire country, the state of utah. Were also the state with the largest percentage of people under the age of 18. Id like to speak to some of those people right now, those people under the age of 18, especially in my state where theyre disproportionately represented. Young americans, those who have not yet attained the age of 18, have had all this deputy cumulate, some all this debt accumulate. Theyre going to be responsible for. Notwithstanding the fact that all of that debt has been accumulated at periods in their life either before they were born or before they were old enough to vote. This amounts to in a sense, mr. President , a really pernicious people of taxation without representation. Now, we won a war over that principle and we won that war. We shouldnt be doing this defiantly without a plan for turning it appeared, without a reason ing it up it around, without a reason to have to do that, a reason that has to do with our very survival, without some sort of plan for getting out. But instead of getting out of it, were accelerating into it, and thats troubling. Now, some might argue and in fact some within this body and in the house of representatives have argued that socalled Discretionary Spending is not worth worrying about. Discretionary spending refers to that part of the government that congress decides on each and every year, that isnt predecided like our entitlement programs are. In other words, mandatory or entitlement spending, spending oppose things like Social Security spending on things like Social Security and medicare that are already set aside, those are things that we dont have discretion on. Theyre already called for by law. We already have to spend money on them. So there are those in congress who will maintain that we shouldnt worry about Discretionary Spending, which is the primary focus of this measure, of this budget caps deal, of this debt ceiling deal, because really the bigger picture, the bigger concern, the bigger threat is in fact about mandatory spending. Its the ent programs they will say is driving the debt prices. Its important to point out, mr. President , were not reforming those either. We couldnt even stick to the budget caps that both parties and both houses and the white house agreed to just a few years ago. So its, it defies logic and reason in my mind for people to say we shouldnt worry about Discretionary Spending because mandatory spending is really where the problem is. No one would ever advise someone struggling with Alcohol Consumption that they shouldnt worry about consuming too much alcohol if theyre also addicted to something else, meth or heroin or other subassistance subassistance substance that might be harmful to them. Thats the concern ive got with this deal. Thats the reason i plan to vote against it. I know i will be the first to admit there are no easy solutions here. There are no solutions that anyone would look to and say, yeah, that sounds like a lot of fun. I dont want to do that. It reminds me of a time when my sister stephanie was enrolled in a new school shortly after my family had moved back to utah. Stephanie was in kindergarten. Stephanie was asked by the teachers, they were testing her and trying to figure out which class she should be in, to take out her favorite color of crayon and write down her name. My mom watched from a distance as the teacher administered this test. She knew that stephanie knew full well how to write her name. She watched in a certain degree of agony as stephanie sat there and didnt pick up a single crayon. After the test was complete and the teacher concluded mistakenly that stephanie didnt know how to write her name, my mom asked her why didnt you write your name . She said, well, the lady asked me to pick up my favorite color of crayon and they didnt have pink, so i didnt write my name. Sometimes i wonder whether congress is in the same position as my sister stephanie when she was at that young age being tested. We dont see our favorite color of crayon. We dont see our favorite option. We dont see any easy options there. In fact, we see a whole lot of options that would vofl putting a dent in this problem, this growing, building problem i pointed out in the graph, and we see criticism that would likely ensue from any one of those options. I understand that. It doesnt mean that the laws of mathematics wont eventually catch up to us. Winston churchill is known to have said of the American People that the American People will always make the right choice after they have exhausted every other alternative. Now, mr. President , i dont know whether he in fact said that. If he did in fact say it, i dont think he meant it as a compliment to the American People. But i take it as such. It is a compliment. It is what differentiates us from other countries. We do in fact make the right choice not because of who we are, but because of what we do. And generally, at least after weve exhausted other alternatives, we do make the right choice, a choice that reflects the principles of liberty that really have always defined us as a nation. Those principles cannot coexist with an effort that suggests to us that our government is so big and has to be so big that theres nothing we can do about the fact that americans are required to workweeks or months out of every year just to pay their federal taxes and then be told that were 22 trillion in debt. By the time the two years contemplated under this deal have passed, we may well be at 23 trillion, 24 trillion, perhaps approaching 25 trillion in debt. Is it going to be any easier then to deal with the problem than it is now . I think not. If not us, who . If not now, when . The way we start making steps in the right direction is to vote against a bill, a bill that like this one, does not meaningfully address the problem. Thank you, mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. Braun mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from indiana. Mr. Braun ive got the good fortune every thursday sitting here anywhere from 3 00 to 6 00, depending on what the workload is. Since ive gotten here as the senator from indiana, as a main street entrepreneur, almost everything i talk about is stuff that ive learned back in the real world. And now and then there will be a speaker here that breaks up the monotony of sitting there for that amount of time. My friend and fellow senator, senator lee, couldnt have said it more eloquently. Ive got a beautiful graph here to show the issue. Im going to take just a few minutes to reinforce what he said. And when i ran for senate, i did it out of a frustration that it seems like only here in d. C. Do we hear the same things year after year and nothing ever seems to change. I know the responsibility of leadership, in trying to navigate through the system, but sooner or later youve got to just simply say enough is enough. You know, this year with the president i really think wanting to shake the system up, i was hoping that back in march of 2018, when there was a continuing resolution agreed to to reenable defense, which in my opinion, is probably the most important thing the federal government should do, that that might be the last time. Senator lee said look at the chart. There was always a good reason in the past. It was generally along the lines of defending our country. But the ethic back then should be what the ethic is now and like it is for every household, every state government, every school board, and especially every business, that you borrow money not to consume thats called putting it on a credit card and almost everything we do in the federal government, theres not a tangible as set to show for it. Were actually spending it and consuming it. When you borrow money in any business, theres a difference between expenses and supplies and capital expenditures. We do not even talk about that. Im going to accept the reality of the system today. I dont like it. Im going to vote against the bill as well. Ive talked to my fellow members about we need to sooner or later quit saying the same things. We need to sooner or later to reform the system, to actually do things that are going to be different from everything weve done in the past that has led us to this. Hows it going to happen . Were going to need to have more senators like senator lee, like myself to get involved and make the case. But the only way this is really going to happen as if hoosiers, americans, know you could never get by with this in your own household. I know i could have never built a National Business by doing this over 37 years. Its like in business, people always ask me how did you get there . I tell you how i got there. Patience, perseverance, hard work, reinvesting every penny i made, borrowing money only when it made sense and it wasnt for nicer corporate headquarters. My office was in a mobile home for 17 years. I appreciated low overhead. When you do things like that, great opportunities come your way. Rather than great opportunities and all the people that come here from indiana every week somehow connected with the federal government, wanting more, my advice to them is hedge your bets. If youre dependent on an institution like this that just is so stubborn, will not correct itself, this trajectory will lead to a bad day somewhere down the road that our kids and grandkids will deal with. The other side of the aisle, i think, does drive a lot a lot os mentality that the federal government should do more regardless of what it costs. The income tax occurred about right back in here. That became a source of revenue for the federal government that we pretty well disciplined ourselves with until we got to right here, when entitlements and the mandated spending took over the dynamic of our federal government. Weve got everything on auto pilot here where you cant even discuss it. Between medicaid, medicare, Social Security, interest on our debt, and about nour another 10 to 15 that weve moved from discretionary to mandatory another gimmick here, theres only about 10 of the budget we can deal with. Senator lee talked about it. All of that we know, and all im asking leadership and the president , when we do win in 2020, because i think we will, because anybody thats proposing ideas like the green new deal, medicare for all, free college tuition, getting rid of college debt is only going to add fuel to the fire. But we as fiscal conservatives are going to have to be heard, and leadership and the president is going to have to hear us. So even though its not going to happen this time, we shouldnt be afraid to talk about it. Because everyone else in our country, households, school boards, businesses, state governments do. And thats because they have the common sense to live within their means, not loot the bank in the present, and shovel all these troubles on the future generations. I yield my time