The presiding officer duly noted. Mr. Lankford mr. President , i want to be able to address this body to talk about an issue that we dont talk about enough, the deficit. Its an issue for whatever reason weve stopped talking about in washington, d. C. Were talking about tax policy, as we should. Were talking about Disaster Relief areas, which we should. Talking about health policies, which we should. A lot of other things. We have stopped talking about debt and deficit. I think thats a mistake for us. See, as the trend has moved, since 2011, at a high point when the deficit spending that year was 1. 3 trillion in overspending in a single year. Since that point, deficits have gone down a little bit each year until 2015. In 2016, our deficit number, thats a single year overspending started going back up. It went up in 2016. It went up again in 2017. Turning the wrong direction. As you will recall and as many people in this body would recall, deficits were a major topic for us starting in 2010. And each year, congress was trying to find ways to be able to reduce the deficit. That doesnt seem to be the issue anymore. What i bring is a set of solutions and a set of ideas. How do we get out of this . Are there Bipartisan Solutions to actually deal with deficit overspending . There are a priority of things that we need to spend money on. We should spend money on those things. The things that are nonessential for us are things that we would all find some way to agree, hey, theres a better way to be able to spend our dollars, we should. So this week, i have produced our third annual federal fumble book. We call it 100 ways the federal government has dropped the ball. None of these should be all that controversial, although we wont agree with all of them, but they are simple ways to be able to look at what the federal government is doing, what they are not doing, where they are spending, where they are overspending and where additional oversight is needed. There is no problem in this country that cant be solved, and certainly our deficit is an issue that cant be solved. Its going to make a have a decision made by each of us that this is actually important and were going to try to resolve this and try to get us back toward balance. I lump all these issues from this book back into a whole series of different process things because each one of the 100 things that we identify are not just stand alone. They are part of a bigger problem. So i have put them together into budget process reforms, grant process reforms, allowing more transparency into how decisions are made and what decisions have been made, and i would say as well senate rule changes that are going to be needed to be able to resolve any of these issues. So we have put these together in these four big blocks to be able to say what are we actually dealing with . Let me just give you a couple ideas of things. If were going to actually deal with some of the budget issues, were going to have to actually deal with the budget process. Were not going to get a better product until we get a better process. Since 1974, the budget act has only worked four times. Four times. And every year, the American People say over and over again what just happened, how come were back in this budget fight, how come its at the end of the year, how come its not resolved . Because we have a bad process, thats why. Our process is not constitutional. Its the product of the law that was put in the budget act. We need to be able to change that. I think there are some basic ways to be able to resolve that. I like to do budgeting and appropriations every two years. That would give us more time to be able to do more oversight. That would give us more time to do floor debate on it to walk through this. There are multiple areas that need to be resolved. Things that need to be done if were actually going to get budget work done. In the meantime, we need to be able to push through what we can with the greatest efficiency, but for the long term, we are going to have to fix a broken process that we have. We should fix the grantmaking process. There has been a lot of pressure to be able to move dollars towards grants because now we have put more and more restrictions on contracting. So because there are very few restrictions on grants, a lot of agencies are now spending more on grants than they are on contracting, and they are pushing dollars out the door with very little supervision. We have got to work on transparency. Im ashamed to say for six years i have pushed on a very simple bill called the taxpayers right to know. It has passed unanimously in the house two different years. It comes over to the senate, and it gets tied up. The taxpayers right to know is very simple. It asks every agency to list everything they do. What a shocking thing that would be, to actually know everything that every agency does. To be able to see what they do, what they spend on it, how many employees they allocate to it, and how many people they serve. Every business in america can give you a list of everything that they do except for the federal government. We cannot. We should. It would give the opportunity for agency heads to find out before they start a program to know if someone else already does it in the federal government. Ive talked to multiple agency individuals now under two different president s that had said they started a program, got it developed, committed people to it, and then a couple of months or years later determined somebody else is already doing it. Even our agency folks dont know what the other agencies are doing. This should be a simple, straightforward solution to be able to help our agencies and to be able to help all of us do greater supervision over the budget. And the fourth thing is, deal with senate rule changes. If we dont solve the issue of our nominations, we will never be able to get actual legislation on the floor and get back to debate again. We have stopped debating on major bills. We have stopped debating on small bills because it takes so much time, its easier just to not do it at all. Thats not what the American People sent us here to do. When we say the senate cannot debate a topic, no one can believe it. That rule doesnt get better based on inactivity. It gets better when we actually fix the basic problem that we have, and that is get us back to debate, solve the nomination process, and lets actually get this resolved. Now, saying all that, all of the things that are in this book this year are things that myself and my staff and my team, Derek Osborne who has led all the compilation of this on my team have put together this basic package to say here are a hundred items. Quite frankly, i would hope that all 100 senators could go through budget areas, and everybody could find 100 items and could identify it and say lets compare a list then and say what are we going to do to be able to deal with debt and deficit . How are we going to deal with some of the spending and inefficiencies of the federal government . We will probably have 100 different lists, but i bet of the 100 different lists, we will find a lot of Common Ground and actually start to solve some things. What types of things did we find on our list this year . Let me give you some examples. The National Science foundation did a grant this past year to study the effect and how things are going for refugees in iceland. Now, im sure the country of iceland would like to know how its going for their refugees and maybe even the u. N. Would like to know, but im a little stunned that the National Science foundation used american tax dollars to study refugees in iceland. The National Endowment for the arts did a grant this past year to help pay for a a local Community Theater in New Hampshire and their performance of doggy hamlet. That is an outdoor presentation where a group of people are yelling and singing around a group of sheep and sheep dogs in an outdoor performance. Now, i have watched the performance. I look at the performance and think thats fine if the folks of New Hampshire want to do that performance. Im not sure why the people of oklahoma are forced through their federal tax dollars to pay for the production of doggy hamlet. The department of defense last year moved some equipment into kuwait to be able to give to the iraqi army, a billion dollars worth of equipment into kuwait to give to the iraqi army. Humvees, small arms, mortars. All thats fine is we are helping equip the iraqi army to allow them to be able to defend themselves. The problem becomes we lost track of them somewhere between kuwait and iraq. And d. O. D. Doesnt know what happened to a billion dollars of equipment after it was delivered to kuwait. The i. R. S. Has had multiple issues that we tried to identify in different segments of this. One is several years ago, we noticed that the i. R. S. Was rehiring employees that they had fired, employees that werent paying their income tax but were working for the i. R. S. Or employees that were using their position to spy on other americans and pull up their Tax Information just because of their own interests. Well, its a fireable offense of the i. R. S. , and it should be, to be able to violate some americans privacy, but the problem is the i. R. S. Has started rehiring those same people right back. I dont know of Many Companies that fire somebody, then later decide they will change their mind and rehire them, but apparently the i. R. S. Has become proficient at that. We identified it several years ago. The i. R. S. Said they would stop it. We checked on that last year. Guess what . The i. R. S. Is still doing it, rehiring employees they have fired, some of them even with their file stamped do not hire. Hired them anyway. We have got to be able to stop that. The i. R. S. Also did a study through a program that they have to be able to research tax compliance. Not changing tax rules. Just how are people complying with the tax rules . And evaluating are they paying the correct amount of tax . Quite frankly, our tax system is so incredibly complicated, its hard to be able to track what is the right amount, but the i. R. S. Should be able to look at and determine whether someone is paying the right amount based on those figures. The i. R. S. Has developed some programs to be able to recommend. The problem is they have not implemented those programs. Over 400 billion of taxes are never collected by the i. R. S. Because theyre not implementing the recommendations that they have already in front of them. The i. R. S. Has also had an issue. Were trying to be able to deal with, and along with several other incidences, by the way, whos alive and whos not alive. See, the Social Security administration keeps track of something called the death master file. It sounds wonderful, doesnt it . The death master file. But it basically says who has passed away in america and what Social Security number is not functional anymore. The i. R. S. Is not fully implementing that list, and at times is still sending checks to people that died years ago where some fraudulent person will take a Social Security number from someone who passed away, will file a return on that Social Security number in january or february, and the i. R. S. Is sending them a check simply because theyre not listing that this person has passed away and that Social Security number is not active. Theyre not the only one on that. We also aid identified for the snap program, what some people call the frap Program Still the food stamp program, the snap program, these false retailers using a false Social Security number that have passed away. Last year, over 2. 6 billion was sent out to snap retailers to Social Security numbers of people that have passed away or that are nonoperable. Those are things that are fixable. 2. 6 billion. Thats just fraud thats in the system. We have asked the question about immigration, and immigration has been an important topic here. We talk about immigration as well, and not just in the financial portion of it but in the fumble portion of things that are going wrong in immigration currently. Some folks in this body have even said we will just enforce the law as it is and build a fence, well be fine. The problem is right at 66 of the people that are in the country illegally came into the country legally with a legal visa but overstayed the visa. They never left. After 9 11, the be 9 11 Commission Said one of the major aspects to deal with immigration was to do an entryexit visa system so we would know when someone came in, who they were, and we would also know when they left. That was a recommendation from the 9 11 commission. Its still not been done a decade and a half later. If were going to deal with immigration, one of the key things we have to have is not just a wall or a fence or some sort of barrier, but its also trying to deal with when people come in and when they leave under legal visa systems. Ive heard comments about lets hire more birth Border Control s and more i. C. E. Folks. Im good with that. The current system, it takes 450 days to hire one person as a Border Patrol person because the process is so convoluted. 450 days. How would you like to apply for a job and you wouldnt hear back about it for a year and a half . 450 days. What if were going to add more immigration attorneys. We have a half a million person backlog in our Immigration Courts right now. What if we were to hire more judges to be able to handle that process . Great idea. Guess how long it takes to be able to hire more judges in the Immigration Court . 742 days right now to be able to hire a judge to be able to add to the Immigration Court. You see, our problems are not just immigration. They are structural problems in the federal government right now, in hiring, in oversight, in managing the reports. I mentioned the i. R. S. Not implementing world cup of the reports that they have. There is also an issue with some other agencies that will put on the back of the federal vehicles the number, like hows my driving, heres the phone number to call. What a great idea for a federal vehicle. The problem is when we looked at it, we found out that the agencies never actually read the reports that came in. So if people called in and said this particular car number is driving crazy, no one is actually looking at t. Its the fear that americans have that no one is really listening to me in the federal government. Clairp ra mccaskill and i worked at something to pass in this body on how are we going to solve this basic question. Can agencies ask how am i doing . When most of us get a rent car or a hotel room online, well get an email right after we check out of that room or stop using that rent car saying how is our service, is there any way we can improve . Did you know federal agencies cant do that or its become so complicated that they cant produce a simple threequestion esurvey to be able to send out to people to say how are we doing in Social Security, disability, how are we doing in vet rarns administration veterans administration, hud assistance to you. The reason for that is the paperwork reduction act of all things, an old law that was supposed to help us is actually in the way of us now in the modern age trying to do basic surveys. We need to be able to resolve that. And thats something this body can lead out to be able to change. There are a lot of things we want to just be able to identify and say we can do better. This is our list. Quite frankly, this is our to do list for the next year, just like the previous two volumes have been. And weve seen some things that weve been able to accomplish over the last couple of years from previous federal fumble books. But you cant get started on them until you actually identify them and say thats a problem. How are we going to fix it. Our simple question for the rest of this body is, heres our list. Whats yours . What are the things that were working on . What are the things that were going to actually get done and say weve solved for the American People . What are the crazy stories and the things that were wasting money on that if we only identified it and said lets stop that, we could and would. Lets do it together. Theres no reason reducing the deficit should have to be an issue thats become a partisan issue. Deficit and growing debt affects every single american. So lets work on it together. And lets stop finding ways that we dont work on it and find areas of Common Ground where we can work on it. Lets fix inefficiencies in federal government hiring. Lets fix inefficiencies in our system. We have a tremendous number of great federal employees that are all around the country that work extremely hard for the American People every day and do great work, but are trapped in a system that slows them down, that prevents them from being as efficient as theyd like to be. Lets help them out by fixing the broken things that are in these agencies and systems. Lets set them free to be able to serve people the way they want to be able to serve people. There are things that we can do. Lets get busy doing it. If youre interested in knowing more about the fumble federal fumbles, go to our website. The whole list is there for any office thats here. Well send you a copy over. Better yet, well sent you a link to our website because its even cheaper and you dont have to print it off. You can look at it online. The issue of the day for us is lets find what your list is. Weve started ours. Mr. President , with that i yield the floor. A senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from hawaii. Ms. Hirono mr. President , the judges donald trump appoints to lifetime positions on our federal court will be a lasting legacy, and he is determined to do what ever it takes to place as many nominees with an ideologically driven agenda on the bunch as possible. Today the senate is debating whether to give Gregory Katsas a lifetime appointment to serve on the United States court of appeals for the d. C. Circuit. Throughout his career, including as Deputy White House counsel under donald trump and a senior official in the Justice Department under george w. Bush, mr. Katsas has demonstrated a profound conservative bias inappropriate for service on the countrys second most important court. As Deputy White House counsel, mr. Katsas has been deeply involved in crafting the legal justification for many of the Trump Administrations most controversial policies. He also played a key role in deciding which court cases the administration would support or oppose and recommending candidates for various executive and judicial appointments. The legal issues hes managed, the advice hes given, and the appointments hes recommended raise serious concerns about whether he should receive a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. In the early days of the administration, mr. Katsas participated in crafting the legal justification for the president s muslim ban. A policy at odds with the constitution and our values as a nation. Mr. Katsas has also been involved in orchestrating the administrations opposition to lgbtq rights in the courts. In particular, he openly admits his role in the Justice Departments decision to argue in a case before the Second Circuit that title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This position is inconsistent with the equal Employment Opportunity commissions 2015 guidance and with the recent up only bunk decision from the second court of appeals. During his confirmation hearing, mr. Katsas testified he was involved in the administrations decision to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case of Masterpiece Cake shop v. Civil rights commission. He also supports the position that a private business should be able to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple. By elevating a corporations religious views over the rights of their customers, mr. Katsas and the Trump Administration argue that businesses should be able to say their work is an expression of their religious beliefs. This would allow them to discriminate against certain customers and turn our system of antidiscrimination protections and public accommodations on its head. These actions and positions should disqualify mr. Katsas from serving on the d. C. Circuit, but theres more. We can also trace his record of pushing a partisan, ideological agenda during his time in the bush Justice Department. In handon v. Rumsfeld, mr. Katsas argued that military commissions the Bush Administration established after 9 11 were illegal and consistent with the uniform code of military justice and the geneva conventions. In burmidiay v. Bush, mr. Katsas also argued that people deemed enemy combatants and detained at guantanamo could not challenge their reattention on habeas corpus grounds. The Supreme Court repudiated these arguments in their landmark decisions in both indicatioindication in both. Mr. Katsas was also the public face of the Bush Administrations opposition to the native Hawaiian Government reorganization act also known as the aca bill. As the associate attorney general in the Bush Administration, mr. Katsas testified in congress that the bill was unconstitutional. He went so far as to say it would, quote, create a racebased government offensive to our nations commitment to equal justice and the elimination of racial distinctions in law, end quote. What was really offensive was that his testimony was legally wrong and insulting to native people, the native hawaiians. In rebuttal, a bipartisan trio of highly respected former d. O. J. Officials said in written testimony that mr. Katsas failed to provide a credible and coherent legal argument against the akaka bill. They argued that his testimony presented and quoting them, quote, a caricatured view of the text of the bill and the governing law and should not be considered an authoritative guide for resolving legal disputes in this area, end quote. I agree. The akaka bill did not confer status to a group of people based on race and ancestry. It did so by virtue of residency and sovereignty. With no grounding in fact or law, mr. Katsas advocated treating native hawaiians differently from other indigenous people. His position on native hawaiian rights is of particular concern at a time when the d. C. Circuit could hear legal challenges to 2016 interior Department Rule through which the native Hawaiian Community could reestablish retaken a governmenttogovernment relationship with the federal government. Mr. Katsas has a disturbing record of pushing a partisan, conservative agenda not based on sound law that has no place in the d. C. Circuit. We cannot simply ignore his record and decouple his past actions from the person responsible for them. Mr. Katsas has clear policy preferences that are red flags as to how he will decide cases should he be confirmed to this lifetime position. I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination. Mr. President , i yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call the presiding officer majority whip. Mr. Cornyn mr. President , i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Cornyn mr. President , this week we are engaged in what is what happens the most momentous subject that we have and dealt with in recent times, and that is after 30 years, 30 years updating and reforming our nations convoluted, complex and ssm destructive and selfdestructive tax code. Now, those who are interested in getting the yes, who will cast a yes vote i believe will be casting a vote for going the economy, voting for more jobs, voting for higher wages, and voting for more takehome pay. Those who vote against this endeavor are really saying yes to stagnant wages, less jobs, lower standard of living, and theyre willing to accept the reality that american jobs are going overseas because our country has this highest tax code in the civilized world and to bring the money thats earned overseas back home, you basically have to pay double taxes. And so what people do is they do what you would logically do. They spend the money overseas and hire Foreign Workers in Foreign Countries rather than americans and make things stamped made in america. Simple flated, this bill is simply stated, this bill is about the dreamers and the doers, the Small Businesses and the hardworking American Families who need tax cuts and tax reform. This is about helping the middle class. Actually what this bill does, the Senate Version of the bill reduces the tax burden on every taxpaying cohort. In other words, all of the tax rates come down. We all in order to do that, both on the personal side and the business side, we had to eliminate a lot of what he call the underbrush, which are the Tax Deductions, the tax credits, the other subsidies that have made our tax code so incomprehensible to everybody other than accountants and lawyers. Thats one reason why people are so frustrated with our tax code, because it costs them so much money just to comply with their legal obligations. So its been a long time since we took up this important topic, and i know the reaction is, well, this is just another going through the motions effort, by i assure you that that is not the case. These reforms are not only possible, they are really important. And because they will positively impact real peoples lives. Now, Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise institute has said that, quote, some people believe that taxation is a dry topic with no moral significance. But nothing could be further from the truth, he said. For example, by doubling the standard deduction, well limit the number of people who have to itemize their Tax Deductions nord to claim the full legal in order to claim the full legal deduction. That means now only one out of every ten taxpayers will have to itemize. And nine out of ten will just claim the standard deduction, which is now will now be doubled. But were also going to double the Child Tax Credit, which will help working families provide the benefits that they need in order to take care of their growing family. And it will mean that more people have more money left over after paying uncle sam to spend on their own families, to invest in their childrens education, maybe even to take the first vacation theyve taken in ten years or more. 2,200 is what a median family of four will save in taxes under our proposal. So maybe they want to get their pickup fixed, maybe they want to just build a little financial cushion because theyve been living paycheck to paycheck. I cant rather the precise statistic, but the number of people in america that could not meet their financial needs if they experienced an unexpected 400 cost maybe your car broke down, maybe you left your house floods or whatever the case may be. We need people to be able to keep more of what they earn and build a cushion so they dont feel they dont have to live with the anxiety of living paycheck to paycheck knowing that if the unexpected happens, it could put them in deep trouble. 2,200 a month or a year could mean a couple hundred dollars each month to put toward your mortgage, to pay down your mortgage or provide a little breathing room. So this plan is also designed to increase wages, and its estimated that the combined benefit of this bill, together with the Economic Growth that we are anticipating, could mean as much as 4,000 in additional income. So not only lowering the tax burden but raising the income levels because, frankly, we are, as i mentioned a moment ago, our tax code incentivizes american businesses to send jobs overseas. So why in the world wouldnt you want to incentive them to bring those jobs back home and invest here . Not only can we make this tax code better, but i want to emphasize why we should. We have an historic opportunity, and we shouldnt squander our chances to take a bit of the pressure off of frustrated workers and families trying to make ends meet. This country has long been a leader in the world, with the strongest economy and the strongest people. But the reality is, our tax code is no longer a world leader. We have, as i indicated earlier, one of the highest tax codes in the world tax rates in the world, particularly for businesses. So what happens when countries like ireland or the United Kingdom lower their tax code lower their tax rates for businesses . Well, those businesses move to those countries. People who want to start a new business say, well, if i have a choice where to start that business, why should i start that business in a country that punishes us with the highest tax rate in the world . The current tax system penalizes success by taxing American Ingenuity and hard work at rates that are uncompetitive and it discourages our Free Enterprise system. What i mean is that it sends a message to americans like, dont work so hard because, you know what . Youre not working for yourself. Youre working for the government. And we ought to be sending a message that by working harder, you can keep more of what you earn and spend it the way you see fit. Companies, of course, have no particular loyalty to our country, so they dont really have a need to stick around because theyre going to be going to countries where they are making the most profit, where they can keep most more of what they earn as well. So my basic point is, the messages that our convoluted and archaic tax system are sending are continent productive to workers looking for a little more in their paycheck, and their counterproductive to families that want to save and provide for their own future. The Tax Policy Center in 2016 projected that almost 44 of americans will pay no or negative individual income tax for 2017 under current law. And some smaller number even gets more money back from the government in the form of refundable tax credits than it pays in taxes. We need to make sure that everybody participates in our government. One thing ive heard a lot about during this tax debate is that america is horribly debt and, sadly, that is true. But it is not because of our tax code. It is not because americans arent taxed enough. Its not because we spend too much money defending our country against threats here at home and abroad. Its because we have a spending problem. But, unfortunately, our democratic colleagues who have suddenly got religion when it comes to deficits and debt, after doubling the National Debt during the obama administration, now they want to use this as a reason not to cut the taxes for hardworking American Families. And i think its terribly misplaced. Is the deficit important . Or is debt important . Yes, it is. And we know what we need to do to fix that. But denying the American People and hardworking American Families the tax relief they need and deserve and getting the economy growing again is failing understand and failing to get the economy growing again is the wrong way to do it. Arthur brooks said, if income tax rates are 100 , income tax revenue will be zero. Why . He said, because with 100 tax rate no one will bother to work. And Companies Wont produce either. For Corporate Taxes were seeing a lot of hypocrisy from our friends across the aisle who previously had championed some of the very provisions weve included in this legislation. For example, the Ranking Member of the Senate Finance committee, our democratic friend from oregon, had previously championed a 24 corporate rate because he recognized that a 35 corporate rate chased companies and businesses and jobs overseas. And yet now he calls our reduction in Corporate Taxes a giveaway to corporations. Or you could consider the statements made by president barack obama in 2011 when he said to a joint session of congress, he said, one of the things republicans and democrats need to do together is to work on lowering the Corporate Tax rate because he, too, recognized that this was selfdestructive. It was chasing jobs overseas, it was preventing the u. S. Treasury from collecting its taxes, and frankly it was hurting the bottom line for American Families who maybe couldnt find work or whose work was not rewarded with fatter paychecks and more takehome pay. So for Corporate Taxes, economists have said actually lowering the Corporate Tax rate will bring more investment and more jobs back home. If it were lowered, expanded production and investment would increase domestically, even though it might seem a a little counterintuitive, barack obama, the senator from oregon, senator wyden, and the minority leader, senator schumer from new york, were correct when they called for lowering the corporate rate. And it really is unseemly now to try to demagogue this issue by calling it a giveaway. When its not. Were doing what they said we should do back years ago. When this comes to these corporate rates, some of my colleagues have raised concerns about passthrough businesses and it is true. A number of businesses operate here in america not aS Corporations but as passthrough entities, meaning this they pay their business income on an individual tax return. These concerns are legitimate and weve worked hard to try to address them. Earlier we were working with the National Federation of independent business, which is one of the largest trade associations in the country representing small and mediumsized passthrough businesses. And we were able to come up with a solution which addressed their concerns and which benefits those passthrough businesses. We still have some more work to do, but that demonstrates what we can do working together to try to answer the concerns that people raise along the way during this legislative process. The u. S. Chamber of commerce, the National Federation of independent business i mentioned a moment ago, and nearly all major Small Business advocacy groups support this legislation. We had a press conference here on this in the senate just off the floor earlier this morning. It was uniform everybody said this is good for Small Businesses and Small Businesses are what create the vast majority of jobs in america. I know that those who have continued questions or issues about the legislation have had productive discussions with all of us and today with the president who came to visit us. Im confident that if we keep working at it in good faith, we can come up with a way to address the remaining issues so that were all satisfied as much as possible. But there is an expression dont let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If youre waiting around for perfection, particularly here in the legislative process, youre never going to get anything done. Thats not an excuse for not making it as good as it can possibly be. And i believe working together, preferably on a bipartisan basis, that if our democratic colleagues refuse to participate, as they have so far, then we have to choice but to do it ourselves. So in the end, a vote for against tax reform is a vote for economic stag nation. It is allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. The wall street journal, as he this said yesterday, the question we need to ask ourselves is not whether the tax bill is perfect but whether it is a net benefit to the United States. I think it clearly is, and i think that with the policies embodied in this bill, we can restore americas economic vig vigor. America must continue to prosper if its to remain the economic beacon of the world. And we need to remain a strong country economically so we can defend ourselves and our friends and allies abroad. The rest of the world, its true, is just waiting for a sign that americas best days are ahead. And passing this important tax legislation is an indication that its the case, that americas best days still lie ahead. So its time to awaken the slumbering giant of the American Economy by lightening the load on workers and companies alike. We can make sure new opportunities abound for those just coming into the workforce. Well make everyday drivers of the economy excited about our countrys future. The president noted today when he was with us at lunch that Consumer Confidence is at an alltime high. People have seen the stock market go up and their Retirement Funds that are invested in Pension Funds or ira or else we are skyrocket since the Trump Administration came into office. I think thats because people are sensing that were on the verge of a great economic recovery. Accepting stagnant, anemic recovery is not something we have to do. We know what we need to do to rev up the engine of the American Economy and to get it moving again to benefit all of us. Well, through tax reform, lets show the American Dream of allowing men and women to work hard and earn success isnt just a bygone notion and its not just a figment of our imagination. We can do it if we pass this tax reform bill this week, which we intend to do. Mr. President , i yield the floor, and id note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call mr. Hatch mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from utah. Mr. Hatch mr. President , i rise today to address the presiding officer were in a quorum call. Mr. Hatch i ask unanimous consent a the quorum call be rescinded. The presiding officer without objection. The senator from utah. Mr. Hatch i rise today to address the Senate Addressing judicial nominations, the role of the Judicial Bar Association and the socalled blueslip currency. Each can influence the appointment process, and we must be diligent to ensure that neither is abused. The Eisenhower Administration was the first to request the a. B. A. s input, the american Bar Associations input on prospective judicial nominations. Speaking to the 1955 a. B. A. Convention. President eisenhower thanked the a. B. A. For helping him and his advisors to, quote, secure judges, unquote, of the kind he wanted to appoint. If that sounds like the a. B. A. Was a part of the administration, it was. The a. B. A. Evaluated individuals before they were even nominated. Individuals deemed not qualified by the a. B. A. Were almost never nominated. No other Interest Group was given such a quasiofficial veto over nominations to any other office. What could justify such a special role for an Interest Group the nonpolitical professional association concerned only with the Legal Profession and the practice of law. In his 1933 annual meeting in grand rapids, michigan, for example, the a. B. A. S Executive Committee considered changing the a. B. A. Constitution to allow, quote, discussion and expressions of opinion on questions of public interest, unquote. After arguments that this would revolutionize the scope and purpose of the a. B. A. , no one, not one person supported the amendment, to the best of my knowledge. In february, 1965, a. B. A. President louis powell, later to serve on the Supreme Court, wrote that, quote, the prevailing view is that the Association Must follow a policy of noninvolvement in political and emotionally controversial issues. If that view actually prevailed in 1985, it did not last. The a. B. A. House of delegates soon crossed the political rubicon and began taking positions on a host of issues, federal arts funding, affirmative action, the death penalty, welfare policy, immigration, you name it. And the a. B. A. Has endorsed the liberal position, oftentimes the most liberal position. The a. B. A. Not only opines on such issues through regulations but lobbies legislatures and files briefs in court cases. The a. B. A. Has done exactly what it chose not to do back in 1933 and revolutionized the scope and purpose of the organization. It abandoned nearly a century of noninvolvement in political issues. The condition that was set to justify its special role in the judicial appointment process. It hardly seems reasonable that the a. B. A. Could somehow seal off its evaluation of judicial nominees from all of this political activism so that its conclusions could still be trusted. In 1987, several members of the a. B. A. Evaluation Committee Said that judge robert bork was not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. I said at the time that the a. B. A. Was, quote, playing politics with the ratings, unquote. Three years later, several of us on the Judiciary Committee, including nowchairman grassley, expressed the same view in a letter to attorney general richard thornburgh. We wrote that the a. B. A. , quote, can no longer claim the impartial, neutral role it has been given in the judicial selection process, unquote. This conclusion has been bolstered by academic research. In 2001, Professor James lindgren of Northwestern University law School Published a study in the journal of law and politics that examined a. B. A. Ratings for nominees of president s george h. W. Bush and bill clinton. Controlling for race, gender, and a range of objective measurable credentials, professor lindgren found that clinton nominees were ten times, ten times more likely than bush nominees to be rated well qualified by the a. B. A. In fact, he found that, quote, just being nominated by clinton instead of bush is better than any other credential or than all other credentials put together, unquote. Professor lindgren concluded that, quote, the patterns revealed in the data are consistent with the conclusion of Strong Political bias favoring clinton nominees, unquote. A decade later, three political scientists published a study in the Political Research quarterly looking at a. B. A. Ratings for u. S. Court of appeals nominees over a 30year period. Applying recognized social science methods. They concluded that, quote, individuals nominated by a democratic president are significantly more likely to receive higher a. B. A. Ratings than individuals nominated by a republican president. We find strong evidence of systematic bias in favor of democratic nominees, unquote. You dont say. President trump recently nominated steven grass to the u. S. Court of appeals for the eighth circuit. The distinguished senators from nebraska have in the Judiciary Committee and here on the senate floor detailed mr. Grassleys extensive experience and wide support throughout the legal community. He served as chief Deputy Attorney general of nebraska for nearly a dozen years during which time he defended the constitutionality of the states law banning partialbirth abortions. That might have been his most serious sin in the eyes of the a. B. A. , which is which has aggressively embraced the abortion agenda for more than four decades. In 1989, the a. B. A. Formed a committee on overpopulation, which immediately launched a project on the law of abortion and endorsed the uniform abortion act in 1972. Even before the Supreme Courts nowinfamous roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion on demand. The committee endorsed federal funding of abortion in 1978, and in 1990 by more than 21, they opposed any requirement of parental notification before abortions are performed on minors. The a. B. A. Again fully embraced the abortion agenda in 1992 and never looked back. Its no wonder that they would deem someone like mr. Grass not qualified for the bench. President trump has also nominated brett talley to the Federal District court in alabama. Talley attended harvard law school. He spent years in a previous clerkship at the federal appellate and trial court levels. He has worked here in the senate. He has served as the deputy solicitor general of the state of alabama. He has served in the Justice Department most recently as Deputy Assistant attorney general in the office of legal policy. He enjoys the support of both of alabamas home state senators. And has a sterling reputation in the legal community. Yet he, too, has been deemed not qualified by the a. B. A. How is that possible . That determination is nakedly political and should not be taken seriously. The a. B. A. Once defined its purpose in terms of the Legal Profession and the practice of law. It has, however, chosen a different path. By doing so, the a. B. A. Has not only abandoned what once might have justified its role in judicial selection, but has also cast serious doubt on the credibility and integrity of its judicial nominee ratings. The a. B. A. Was, of course, free to do so, but it should not expect that its actions have no consequences. The other element of the judicial confirmation process that i want to address is the socalled blueslip courtesy. This is an informal practice begun in 1917 by which the Judiciary Committee chairman seeks the views of senators regarding nominees who would serve in their states. This practice really only gets noticed when the president and Senate Minority Senate Majority are of the same party. In that situation, like we face today, the question is whether a home state senator can use the blueslip courtesy to block any Senate Consideration and therefore effectively veto a president s nominee nominees. Since the blueslip courtesy was established, 19 senators, including myself, have chaired the Judiciary Committee, ten democrats and nine republicans. Only two of those 19 chairmen treated the blueslip courtesy as a singlesenator veto. One of them apparently to empower southern segregationist senators to block judges who might support integration. The other 17 chairmen fall into two categories. The early chairmen allowed objecting home state senators to present their views in the nominees confirmation hearing. In the last few decades, chairmen of both parties have said that a negative blue slip will not veto a nominee if the white house consulted in good faith with the home state senators. Thats the approach that chairman joe biden took and that i continued. When i was chairman. Each of us under president s of both parties. The blueslip courtesy then has been a way to highlight the views of home state senators and to encourage the white house to consult with them when choosing judicial nominees. And it works. When chairmen of both parties have chosen only a handful of times to proceed with the hearing for a nominee who had two positive blue slips, their decision was consistent with this approach. Today democrats want to rewrite the history of blue slips and redefine the very purpose of the courtesy behind the process. They want to weaponize the blue slips so that a single senator can at any time, for any reason, prevent Senate Consideration of judicial nominees. They want to change the traditional use of the blue slip because they can no longer use the filibuster to defeat judicial nominees who have majority support. Democrats oppose filibustering judicial nominees during the clinton administration, then in just 16 months during the 108th congress, democrats conducted 20 filibusters of judicial nominees by president george w. Bush. These were the first filibusters, judicial filibusters in history to defeat a majoritysupported judicial to defeat a majority majoritysupported judicial nominees. The filibuster pace dropped by twothirds underunder president obama when republicans conducted just seven filibusters in 30 months. Claiming that declining filibusters were nonetheless a crisis, democrats in 2013 abolished nomination filibusters for all executive and judicial nominations, except for the Supreme Court. Democrats took away the ability of 41 senators to block consideration of judicial nominations on the senate floor, but now they demand that a single senator have that much power in the Judiciary Committee by turning the blueslip courtesy into a de facto filibuster. Like the a. B. A. s rating of nominees, nothing but politics explains this flipflopping and manipulation of the confirmation process. On october 31, i addressed this issue here on the senate floor and suggested that the history and purpose of the blueslip courtesy could help guide its application today. I still believe that. The views of home state senators matter, and the white house should sincerely consult with them before making nominations to positions in their states. Home state senators enjoy countless ways to convey their views to colleagues here in the senate, and every senator may decide whether or how to consider those views, but in the end, the blue slip is a courtesy, not an absolute veto. This distinction matters because the Judiciary Committee will tomorrow hold a hearing on a nominee to the u. S. Court of appeals from a state with two Democratic Senators. One has returned the blue slip, the other has not. Chairman grassleys decision to hold a hearing is completely consistent with the history and purpose of the blueslip courtesy. Democrats falsely claim that chairman grassley is eliminating what they say is a longstanding precedent that home state senators may automatically veto Appeals Court nominations. No such precedent exists or ever has unless the practice of only two chairmen for only a fraction of the last century constitutes controlling precedent. And we all know it shouldnt. It is beyond hypocritical for democrats to pretend that they actually care about the confirmation process precedent. They began the practice of forcing timeconsuming roll call votes for nominees with no opposition at all. They began the practice of using the filibuster to defeat majority supported nominees. These began the practice of forcing the president to renominate individuals multiple times. They began the practice of forcing cloture votes on unanimously supported judicial nominees and then delaying a confirmation vote for days. These werent actions undertaken by republicans. There is one side and one side only that has continuously pushed this envelope. Democrats cite a 2009 letter to president obama from the republican conference in an oped i published in 2014 defending the blueslip courtesy. In each situation the democratic majority was actually threatened to abolish the blue slip policy altogether. In my oped i emphasized that the blueslip courtesy is intended to encourage consultation by the white house with home state senators. When he became chairman in 2015, senator grassley explained the blueslip process to his constituents in a Des Moines Register oped. He wrote that the process has value that he intended to honor. He is doing just that by returning to the real history and purpose of the blueslip courtesy. My democratic colleagues seem to think that the confirmation process should be whatever they want it to be at whatever moment they so choose. Now they demand that contrary to most of the last century, a simple senator should be able to do informally what 41 senators can no longer do formally. They demand following precedent that does not exist while creating new obstruction precedence of their own. Democrats have forced the senate to take 60 cloture votes on nominations so far this year. 13 of them on judicial nominations. That is nearly nine times as many as during the first year of all new president s, all of all new president s since the cloture rule was applied to nominations in 1949. Ive been in the minority a number of times, multiple times. I get it. Democrats want their way and they dont always get it. That hardly means that the majority in general and chairman grassley in particular arent being fair, consistent or evenhanded. The blueslip courtesy has a history and it has a purpose. It exists to allow home state senators to share their views with the Judiciary Committee and to encourage the white house consultation, to consult with them before making nominations. Neither a liberal Interest Group like the american Bar Association nor abuse of the blueslip courtesy should be allowed to further distort and politicize the judicial confirmation process. Its a disgrace. It really is a disgrace the way the democrats change the rules automatically overnight without even consulting with republicans and doing it solely to give advantage to their side, even though this is a process that really ought to have fair treatment on both sides at all times. Mr. President , i yield the floor. Mr. Rubio mr. President . Mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from florida. Mr. Rubio mr. President , i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to complete my remarks. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Rubio and i know we are scheduled for a vote in a few minutes. I may well have plenty of time to talk about this in the days to come. I think one of the core things that i hope tax reform will be about is about empowering the American Worker. The American Worker i mean the people you dont make Netflix Series about. There was a time when the American Worker was a hero in our country and people looked up to the American Worker and idealized it. Today obviously entertainment focuses on other professions. Theres not necessarily anything wrong with that but we forgot the value of hard work and the millions of americans across this country that truly remain the backbone of our economy and of our nation. Hardworking men and women who are struggling to get by not because theyre not working hard but because everything costs more, something you quickly find out as your family begins to grow. And its why i have spent so much time talking about the Child Tax Credit. A lot of people confuse that with the child care credit which is important as well but the Child Tax Credit takes into account the reality that raising children is an expense. Its a blessing but it costs money. And so at the end of the day it doesnt always matter how much you make. It matters how much you spend. And when youre raising children and raising a family, the costs are often out of your control and they increase substantially every single year. And so perhaps the best way to illustrate to you the impact that tax reform has on working families is to talk about real people and their real lives, how much money they make and what would tax reform mean for them. I want to start with a real family, a particular family that my staff has been communicating with. Thats the starling family, richard and emily, a young family from jacksonville, florida, and they have a 2yearold daughter and they are expecting their second child in march. Now, richard is a pastor and he works part time at starbucks. He makes about 25,000 a year. His wife, emily, stays home and cares for their daughter while hes at work. Because of their income, the Senate Tax Bills nonrefundable tax credit increase would actually be worth very little for them. A lot of people said to me we increased it to 2,000. Isnt that great . It is but what does it mean when people dont understand is if the majority if not all the taxes you pay are payroll tax, it doesnt help a lot. I always, by the way, i frankly get offended when i hear people say these americans who dont pay taxes, they do pay taxes. Not income taxes but they pay payroll tax. They take it out of their check every month. Trust me, its a tax. Its less money after the tax. So the tax credit while we increased to 2,000 is great for a lot of people, it doesnt nothing for them. The total effect is only about 115 for the family. Thats how much theyll be saving on their taxes from the current year, 115. Heres where it gets worse. The senate bill which i am largely supportive of but i want to tell you the numbers are so we can see where the changes need to be, the senate bill would actually increase taxes in march when they have a child. You say how can that be . Well, as for some families in their income range, the nonrefundable increase to the child credit is less valuable than the current laws personal exemption. So we take away the personal exemption and put in the additional child credit but its not refundable. They cant get to the tax credit because theyre not paying income tax. The result is if they made 26,000 instead 6 25,000, the senate bill would take away 15 from their perchild tax cut. So these families, they work hard. They pay their taxes. They raise children. Theyre contributing an extraordinary amount to our country and they need help more than ever before. So theres a couple other examples. Ail he go to ill go to the first chart. Lets take for example a tire changer and a preschoolteacher with two children in gainesville, florida, the home of the university of florida, the finest learning institution in the southeast. An editorial thing. I digress. Let me get back to chart number one. We talk about this family. The husband as i said, he works at a local auto shop, a tire changer. His wife is a preschoolteacher and according to the bureau of labor statistics, these two jobs, their combined income would be 28,300. Because of the increase to the Child Tax Credit is nonrefundable, the extra money weve put in, this family wouldnt nearly have enough income Tax Liability to take advantage of the full credit. So the bill as its currently written gives them a tax cut of 200, about 50 per person. But what if we did what senator lee and i are proposing which is to make the Child Tax Credit fully refundable, even against payroll tax. Well, then their tax cut would not be 200. It would be 1,570. Now trust me when i tell that you for a family making 28,000 a year, a 1,500 pay increase in real cash matters. It matters. It doesnt solve all their problems but it helps. Heres another one. Take this example. A husband whos a private in the Army National guard and his wife is a waitress at a local restaurant. They have three children. Hes an active duty in stark, florida, and she works full time. Combined income 33,832 according to the National Guard base pay. Because the increase again is nonrefundable and the Child Tax Credit, they dont have enough income to take full advantage of the tax credit. The bill as currently written cuts their taxes about 388. The proposal that senator lee and i have outlined would tut their tax cut their taxes by 2,100. So a 2,100 pay increase for this working family in cash will matter. Will matter. Doesnt solve all their problems but trust me, 2,100 for this family, more than what they have today will help them a lot and it rewards the work theyre doing. What about a single mother. Lets say shes a child care worker, has one child living in miami, florida, where i live. She works full time and according to the bureau of labor statistics, the median wage for that job is 14,800 a year. She gets a tax cut under the current bill of about 100. If we do what were talking about doing, senator lee and i, shed get a 1,000 tax cut. Im not telling you 1,000 solves all her problems but a 1,000 pay increase for a single mother making 14,800 a year will matter. How about a loading dock worker and a cashier in northwest florida. After having two kids. Heres what we point to, a glaring blind spot in the way this is structured. Again because many working families because the Child Tax Credit is nonrefundable, it will actually be less valuable to parents than the dependent ebbs edges and the exphissing child crazy are under on he owe child credit law under existing law. He works as a freight worker. They both work and live full time in florida. Average combined income about 28,000. Under the current tax code the way the law is today, if they had to kids, their tax cut would be 2,076. Thats what they would save. Under the current bill the tax cut would be 2,756. The way the bill is structured now, they would be getting 120 less or keeping 1 ten less than what they would under the law today for a family making 28,000 a year. We can fix it. Because under the proposal that senator lee and i will have, theyre going to see a tax cut of 4,000 for having that additional child. Thats 1,200 greater than the current law. Thats a raise of 1,300 more than what would happen under the bill as its currently structured. I dont think this was an intended consequence but this is a working family. They work. They pay payroll tax. They make 28,000, 29,000 a year. Trust me when i tell you this money will matter. It wont solve all their problems. But it will help. It will help. Its a pay raise. And last but not least, i look at my own where i live. I live in west miami, florida. I lived there since 1985. Its a working class neighborhood. According to the census, the average Family Income in west miami where i live, 38,000. Lets say 39,000. That doesnt mean west miami is poor. I know the people there. They work hard. They pay their taxes. They raise their children well. They go to work five days a week, eight or nine hours a day, sometimes on the weekends. But because its a working class town, the nonrefundable increase we put in to the Child Tax Credit doesnt do much. As an example, based on the census data for west miami, for that kipp doad that i live in zip code that i live in, more than 2,500 children in this zip code meaning more than half of the total number of children living in that area would be receiving less than the full credit than they would otherwise be eligible for. Why . Because their parents, their primary Tax Liability is the pay control tax. And you cannot help working families with a tax cut if you do not allow the cut to apply to the payroll tax. Its as simple as that. We have to do that. You want to help people in this country . You really want to help them have a little more in their pocket . Then lets do this proposal we have. By the way, i hear these economists and other people say, well, it wont do anything for growth. You really dont understand how working americans live. For someone who makes 38,000 a year or 35,000 a year, they basically spend every penny they make. They have to. You make 38,000 a year with two kids, you are spending every penny you make and then probably having to put the extra on your credit card, unfortunately. That will drive consumer spending. It will allow them to pay for some things they cant buy now. These kids outgrow their shoes so fast. The book bags dont make it through a year. These are 0 so many things we could be helping families w our tax reforms should be doing that. Everybody else in this town has a lobbyist, newspapers that write about them. Who writes about them . Who writes about these working americans, working americans, okay . Not people asking for anything from the government. They go work, they work hard, they work every day. Who fights for them, who talks about them, who represents them . Thats supposed to be us. And if were serious about representing them, then lets prove it. Lets amend this bill and change it so we can give working americans the raise that they deserve and that they need to strengthen our country and strengthen our families. With that, mr. President , i yield the floor. The presiding officer question occurs on the katsas nomination. Is there a sufficient second . There appears to be. The clerk will call the roll. Vote vote vote the presiding officer the yeas are 50, the nays are 48. The nomination is confirmed. Mr. Mcconnell mr. President. The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent that with respect to the katsas nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president be immediately notified of the senates action, and the senate then resume legislative session. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i move to proceed to s. 1519. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk motion to proceed to the consideration of s. 1519, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018 for military activities of the department of defense, and so forth and for other purposes. A senator mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from north dakota. Mr. Hoeven mr. President , i rise to discuss the tax relief bill which the senate is working very hard to pass, and i brought some charts with me today to show the impact that this bill will have in terms of reducing the tax burden for hardworking american taxpayers, and also helping to to grow our economy. Its important to understand that this is not just about making sure that american taxpayers can keep more of their hardearned wages and income, but also that this is about making sure that we have a growing economy, that we have more jobs, and that we have rising wages and rising income for American Workers. And here are just some of the statistics that show that. These are according to the Nonpartisan Tax Foundation and also the council of economic advisors. What you see from this first chart is that this tax relief package is about real Economic Growth, not just making sure that that our taxpayers get a tax cut, but about growing our economy. This top number from comes from the council of economic advisors, thats 4,000 that workers on average would receive from the Economic Growth created by the combination of reducing the Regulatory Burden, which is something that we have been working on all year with the administration, reducing that Regulatory Burden and combining that then with tax relief to generate more Economic Growth. As i said, according to the council of economic advisors and the Nonpartisan Tax Foundation, it also generates almost 4 in terms of a larger economy. So this is about reducing the tax rates but growing the base and making sure, as i said, there is not only more jobs but also rising wages and income from that demand for labor that comes with a growing economy, that comes with investment, that comes with job creation. For an average family of four, the tax cut is about 2,200 under the senate bill. It generates about 925,000 new jobs over the scoring period. And as i say, about almost a 4 larger economy. This next chart shows that across all income groups, across every income group, you see tax relief. Thats because we start by reducing the tax rates. So across the board, we work to make sure that youre applying a lower tax rate to whatever income cohort youre talking about. New rate is 10 , 12 , 22 , 34 , 35 , 38. 5 top rate. But when you combine the lower rates along with an increased standard deduction. We increase the standard deduction by doubling it from around 6,000 to 12,000, 24,000 for married filers, 18,000 for a single filer with dependent, but the result is that across every income group, we reduce the amount of tax that they have to pay. At the same time we preserve and expand many of the current tax provisions that are important to our American Families. For example, the Child Tax Credit, which is something that the presiding officer has worked on very diligently, would be doubled. We double the Child Tax Credit from 1,000 to 2,000. More familyowned Small Businesses and family farms will be protected from the death tax because we double the exemption amount. Right now the unified credit is about 5. 5 million. And we double that to more than 11 million so that if you have a Small Business or a farm, youre able to pass that from one generation to the next without being forced to sell it. To help save for college, expecting parents will be able to open a 529 savings account, again helping families with children and businesses will be encouraged to provide paid family and medical leave by giving them a tax credit to partially offset an employees pay caring for their child or for a family member. Now, we do all of this while maintaining Tax Deductions that are important to Many Americans. These include continuing the mortgage interest deduction, very important for homeowners. Continuing the deductibility of charitable contributions to ensure that charities continue to receive contributions that are so important to them. Continuing the child and dependent care tax credits, the adoption tax credit, the earned income tax credit, and the deferred treatment for 401 k and individual retirement accounts. That was something that came up earlier, some concern about reducing the limits on what could be contributed to retirement accounts on a taxdeferred basis, and we continue those levels so that individuals can continue to save for retirement. We also continue the medical expense deduction, which is important, in many cases maybe important to seniors who have significant medical expensesment the resulting increase in aftertax credit will allow families more Financial Freedom and empower them to save for their real estate tirement or perhaps that are for their retirement or perhaps for their childs education. Over onethird of all families are just 400 away from financial serious financial difficulty. This is muchneeded relief and it is certainly overdue. And this tax relief is also very important for Small Businesses, so our third chart really goes to Small Businesses, which of course is the backbone of our economy. In my state, farming and ranching is incredibly important, but across the country, the backbone of our economy is Small Businesses. 90 of the businesses in america are Small Businesses. And what this shows is that for passthroughs, which typically Small Businesses are passthroughs, that theres income relief again at all income levels. Because remember how these passthrough Small Businesses work. Whether you have a sub s corporation, a limited limelight corporation, a limited Liability Partnership or a regular partnership, all these different types of Small Businesses are passthroughs, meaning the income flows through the business entity and is taxed at the individual level. Thats why it is very important to show that at all income levels, Small Businesses benefit from this tax reduction. By reducing the maximum tax rate for sole protighterships, partnerships, S Corporations and all the other passthroughent i just menged, were creating greater Economic Growth and opportunities as Small Businesses reinvest in their companies, reinvest in their employees and reinvest in their communities. For many Small Businesses, equipment, business supplies, and other Capital Expenditures are very costly, and it cuts into their profit margin. So this is about helping them make those investments that enable them to grow their businesses, increase wages, and higher more employees. Our tax bill also allows businesses to immediately expense or write off the cost of new investments, effectively reinvesting in our Small Businesses and driving Economic Growth, job creation, and higher wages for American Workers. We increase the amount allowed under section 179, something very important to Small Businesses, which essentially allows this emto expense or write off their investments. This is hugely important expensing provision for farmers, for ranchers, and really for Small Businesses across the board, and we enhance that section 179 expensing. All the while we work to make sure that we have stable government revenues through a broader tax base, a growing economy, and a more efficient tax system. That means we encourage investment, and it means that the revenues that come to government come from a Larger Tax Base and lower rates. So individually the hardworking citizens pay less of their earnings and businesses pay less as a percentage of their revenues, but because youve got that Economic Growth, you have got that rising tide that lifts all boats. Thats some of what i snowed that first slide, thatness growing our economy and driving that Economic Growth. The bill ensures that were competitive in the global economy. In fact, as a result of the tax relief and tax reform were undertaking, theres Something Like 2. 5 trillion thats currently overseas that now has an incentive to come home and is invested here at home in our businesses, creating jobs in america, an expansion of americas economy rather than having that money parked overseas or invested overseas. So for all these reasons, mr. President , i urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle both sides of the aisle to work to pass this tax relief, this tax reform. This really is about making sure that hardworking american taxpayers decide what to do with their hardearned dollars. And again i ask that all of us work together, pass this bill through the senate, get it into conference with the house, and get the very best tax relief product we can for the American People and that we get it done before the end of the year. With that, mr. President , i yield the floor. Mr. Whitehouse mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from rhode island. Mr. Whitehouse in this season of thanksgiving, let me say that im thankful, as i rise for my 187th time to wake up address, the spirit that this great nation devotes to tackling Climate Change, even with this president. The United States now is alone in the world as the only nation not committed to the historic paris agreement. But at the u. N. Climate change conference in germany, i saw firsthand that americans are still committed to climate action. Corporate leaders like mars, microsoft, facebook, and walmart were there to discuss the role american corporations can take on Climate Change. American governors, mayors, universities, and many other corporations all brought the same message to bahn that notwithstanding the corrupted Trump Administration, america is still in. Senators cardin, markey, schatz, and merkley and i sent the message that most of our constituents and the majority of the American People believe that Climate Change is a serious threat to our country and the planet and that American Action and leadership is necessary. A an entire day was dedicated to the changes were seeing in the worlds oceans. This is where the industrys liers and climate deniers get stumped. The oceans bear the brunt of our carbon pollution. Sea levels are rising. Watersare warming, and seas are acidifying. These unbelievable measurements have no answer from the climate denial apparatus, so the denial apparatus just chooses to ignore the oceans. But we cant ignore the oceans. Certainly not in coastal states. The reality of ocean Climate Change hits home along our coasts. Warming waters move our fisheries around. Sea level rise erodes our shores. And we must prepare for more frequent and intense hurricanes and storms. The Trump Administration is more or less completely crooked on this subject. But even they had to throw in the towel and release without amendment the recent United States Climate Science special report. They had no scientific rebuttal none to the dozen federal agencies and departments who assembled the latest and best understanding of the effects of Climate Change on the United States. They couldnt rebut it. They chose to ignore it. Will that report affect this administrations industrypaid Climate Policies . Of course not. Those policies are bought and paid for. But its worth lookingty Climate Science report but its worth looking at the Climate Science report. This report gave special attention to storms. The frequency is projected to increase. The report continues, assuming storm character sticks do not change, Sea Level Rise will increase the frequency and extent of extreme flooding associated with coastal storms, such as hurricanes and nor easters. Extreme flooding, mr. President , matters quite a lot in rhode island. The report continues, a projected increase in the intensity of hurricanes in the north atlantic could increase the probability of extreme flooding along most of the u. S. , atlantic, and gulf coast states. Beyond what would be projected based solely on relative Sea Level Rise. End quote. Its going to happen just from projected Sea Level Rise. This means that extreme flooding could exceed those predictions because of storm activity. Humans are driving these changes, the report says, not the alternative explanation for these changes offered by the climate deniers. Oh, wait, thats right. Theyve got no alternative slang. Explanation. Theyve got nothing. Theyve got nothing but industryfunded denial. There is no alternative explanation to what the scientists say, which is actually consistent with the Climate Science special reports finding that there is no convincing alternative explanation. Thats not the only report. Last year the Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office release add report titled, quote, effects of Climate Change and Coastal Development on u. S. Hurricane damage implications for the federal budget, end quote. That report projected that by 2075, annual damage from hurricanes will increase by 120 billion. Annual changes up by 120 billion. As coastal populations increase, as sea levels rise, and as u. S. Landfalls of strong hurricanes become more frequent. Thats the prediction. Of that increase, around 45 can already be clearly attributed to Climate Change. In a presentation from early november, c. B. O. Summarized expected damage from hurricanes will grow more quickly than g. D. P. The share of the population facing substantial damage will grow fivefold by 2075 and on the basis of past patterns, federal spending on hurricanes will also grow more quickly than g. D. P. The World Meteorological association has also release add report connecting extraordinary weather what they call extraordinary weather to manmade Climate Change. Warmer temperatures spur increased precipitation, the report says, and higher sea levels amplify storm surges driven by hurricanes and other coastal forms. Coastal storms. This is not new. It is just being frequently and constantly reported, with no convincing alternative explanation. During the typical atlantic Hurricane Season, storms develop in the warm tropical waters off of the western african coast, and these storms gather heat and n. R. C. As they pass over heat and energy as they pass over this band of warm sea water across the atlantic known as the hurricane highway. This is the west coast of africa. Here is south america. Heres the u. S. Theres florida. And here is the hurricane highway leading up into the caribbean. Whether these storms become devastating category 4 and 5 hurricanes or weaken and disperse along the way depends on atmospheric conditions and on this ocean heat that powers up those hurricanes. A typical atlantic Hurricane Season used to generate roughly six hurricanes, three of which reached category 3 or higher. That was then. Typical is no longer typical. During august of 2017, this hurricane highway that i showed you reached nine degrees fahrenheit hotter than the 30year average. Nine degrees fahrenheit hotter. This exceptional warming supercharged storms into hurricanes bearing catastrophic damage. The superheated 2017 hurricane highway fueled not six but ten named hurricanes. And six, not three, reached category 3 strength or higher. Including hurricanes harvey, irma, jose, and maria. Whats more, all ten of the seasons hurricanes occurred in a row. The greatest number of consecutive hurricanes in the satellite era. Typically what happens is a storm will churn up cooler water in its wake. So during typical years, a following storm will weaken over the cooler waters left in a preceding storms wake. Thats the way it older works. It ordinarily works. This should have been the case for Hurricane Irma as it charged northwest through the caribbean just days after harvey. But as i said, hurricanes are powered up by sea surface temperatures, particularly sea surface temperatures above 82 degrees farenheit. And by september 7, as irma moved over the coasts of cuba and up into the bahamas and florida, this hurricane highway had surface temperatures left behind harvey measuring up to 87 degrees farenheit. The result of that onslaught is that the entire island of puerto rico is still recovering. The Virgin Islands were also slammed. Houston saw epic widespread flooding. Welcome to the new typical, thanks to ocean warming, which comes to us thanks to Climate Change, which comes to us thanks to carbon pollution, which still comes to us in such a polluting flood thanks to a generation of industry lying that has not stopped to this day. University of rhode island professor isaac guiness at the southern new england weather conference earlier this month presented his worstcase scenario models for a hurricane roti that would bring levels of destruction to rhode island not since we were hit by the great hurricane of 1938 whose destruction is seen here in downtown providence. Or hurricane carol which brought similar destruction in 1954. Thats providence city hall. Thats the roof of a streetcar. Another streetcar half flooded. And this is water in a river pouring by downtown providence through the streets, essentially whitewater in downtown providence. The flooding that providence endured in hurricane carol caused us to build a hurricane barrier across whats called fox point to protect downtown. However, even with the hurricane barrier in place, professor guinnesss simulations show three feet of flooding in downtown providence if a category 3 hurricane were to hit us at high tide. And if he proposed, if our hurricane roti were to swing back around and make a second landfall as esther did in 1961, he modeled it based on the previous experience with hurricane esther, then if it came back even in a weakened category 2 state, providence could see up fo 14 feet up to 14 feet of flooding. But wait, theres more. Fast forward a few decades and several feet of projected Sea Level Rise, and then providence doesnt stand a chance. The Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration put 9 to 12 projected vertical feet of Sea Level Rise riding up Rhode Islands shores by the end of the century. According to crmc, our Coastal Resources management council, at 10 feet of Sea Level Rise, rhode island would lose 36 square miles of total land area. Goodbye to much of newport, warwick, barrington, block island, point judith, and other coastal communities Rhode Islanders hold dear. This is the current projectses by our state agencies, our State University and noaa. As the senate prepares a third Disaster Relief funding package, we cant just fund immediate hurricane recovery. We must also help coastal communities look ahead to the next storm. We need better coastal flood mapping and risk modeling. We need to prepare for damage to natural and engineered coastal infrastructure. We need research and modeling to understand what coastal populations face from the new typical. Stronger hurricanes, Sea Level Rise, heavy precipation, disrupted fisheries and increased storms and storm surges. We have to prepare for this. It would be stupid not to put a small percentage of what were spending in cleanup and recovery into prevention, protection, and preparation. Its just common sense. Mr. President , the Trump Administration does not represent american views on Climate Change. It has been captured by an industry that has been dishonest about this industry for a generation, and it now represents the falsehoods of that industry. For that reason, it also no longer represents american determination to tackle this challenge. That determination is now found in statehouses, in corporations, in our great universities, and across the American People. Americans know that we can pull together to avoid some of these worstcase scenarios. Coastal communities in particular are keenly aware of the special risks that they face. In the senate, i remain eager to work with my colleagues on all of the above. You know where to find me. I yield the floor. Mr. Casey mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from pennsylvania. Mr. Casey mr. President , i ask to speak as if in morning business. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Casey thank you, mr. President. Mr. President , i rise this evening to talk about the tax bill that will come to the floor very soon. Well be debating it. I guess were starting debate and well be debating it the next couple of days. There is a lot to talk about, a lot of numbers, a lot of data, but ill try to limit the numbers as best i can, but its important to review some of the numbers. I start with for tonights purposes just two, two numbers. 59,456. Thats the first number. And the second number is seven. What do i mean when i say 59,456 . Its in dollars, 59,456 is the average annual tax cut for those making over a Million Dollars a year in 2019. As many people know that have been following the debate, the senate bill delayed a Corporate Tax cut by one year so most of the analysis starts in the year 2019, not 2018. So 59,456 of a tax cut for those making over a Million Dollars in the first year of the bill, 2019. What does seven mean . Seven is also a dollar number. 7 is the average monthly tax cut for americans making between 20,000 and 30,000 a year in that same year, 2019. So its a if you wanted to compare the annual number of 59,456 to the annual average tax cut for that income categor for the same year, it would be about 84. So no matter which pay you look at it, there is a basic unfairness there, and even when you apply percentages, its very clear that folks in those lower income brackets dont get the benefit that the the richest among us, the super rich people making more than a million, but even if you drop down the number to over a half a Million Dollars and up, those folks are getting sometimes double, even triple the tax cuts for people in the broad middle. But it might be the most egregious example, the one i just cited, people making 20,000 to 30,000 a year getting just 7 a month in the tax cut. One of the reasons why the bill is so stingy and so unfair when it comes to folks in the lower income brackets or even the middle income brackets is because so much has been given in the bill to big corporations, right . There is only a certain amount of revenue that you can you can move around in a bill like this. Because the corporate and i should say the permanent Corporate Tax cut, the tax cuts for families is not is not permanent, but the permanent Corporate Tax cut is 1. 5 trillion or by one estimate 1. 414 trillion over ten years. So when you allocate that much to big corporations and make it permanent, it obviously limits your ability to help the middle class in a robust or substantial way. I think most americans would say why dont we limit any kind of Corporate Tax break and apply potentially hundreds of millions of dollars, with a b, to a bigger middleclass tax cut, but the majority so far starting with the finance committee has decided not to do that. So i just leave that for people to consider, is it fair when youre doing a tax bill, socalled tax reform for the first time in three decades . Is it fair that people making over a million who dont need 59,456, does it make sense to give them that and to give the store away to corporations in a permanent fashion and give folks making 20,000 to 30,000 just seven bucks a month or 84 bucks over the course of the year on average . But it gets worse. The numbers get even more egregious, more insulting. That same year, 2019, 572,000 of our countrys richest households would get 34 billion worth of tax cuts. You heard that right. In one year, a rather small group of americans, 572,000 of the richest households, get 34 billion of a tax cut in just that one year. That 34 billion in that one year to the richest among us gets even higher if you add in other provisions, other tax cuts, but i will be conservative and just limit it to the 34 billion. Some people might say well, what about the rest of the country or most of the country . Whats left . Well, if you compare that 34 billion for a small a relatively small group of the wealthiest, you compare that to 90 million, my arms dont stretch out far enough to compare 572,000 taxpayers with 90 million. What happens to 90 million taxpayers who happen to make under 50,000 . A couple of minutes ago i talked about 20,000 to 30,000. Now were talking about everyone below 50,000 in a year. Thats about 90 Million People. What happens to them . Well, they get a grand total of 14 billion, and some even see a tax increase. So lets leave the tax increase for people making less than 50 off the table for now because some will get a tax increase, some will get a benefit. So its its hard to comprehend that 90 Million People divvy up 14 billion, but a fraction, a tiny fraction of that, 572,000 people get 34 billion, just in 2019. And then you have 2020 and 2021, and they keep getting those dollar amounts. Some people might say well, you know, everyone should get a tax cut in a bill like this. Even if the wealthy get a tax cut, thats the way washington works. This is and i have described this bill this way over and over again, and i will keep describing it this way. Its a giveaway. Its a giveaway to the super rich. Its certainly a giveaway to big corporations. They get a trillion and a half, and its permanent. There has been a lot of analyses done of this bill, and there are lots of stories to point to. I just point to one that came out just yesterday. The center on budget and policy priorities came out with a report a little more than seven pages worth. They do reports like this on a regular basis. Sometimes more than one report in a week. I know folks cant read it from a distance, but here is what the headline says. J. C. T. Estimates, joint committee on taxation, thats the acronym, joint committee on taxation estimates amended Senate Tax Bill skewed to top, hurts many low and middleclass americans. Thats what the center on budget and policy priorities said yesterday. So what they are analyzing here is not is not the original proposal that folks in the Senate Republican caucus offered. This is the amended senate bill. Heres what they say in pertinent part. I will just read maybe two sentences. Under the amended bill in 2025 when most of its provisions would be in place, highincome households would get the largest tax cuts as a share of aftertax income on average while households are incomes below 30,000 would on average face a tax increase. By 2027, when many of the provisions would have expired, those at the top would still get large tax cuts, but every income group below i will read that again every income group below 75,000 would face tax increases on average. You heard that right. Tax increases on average. So whether you look at it in the year 2019 for people making 20,000 to 30,000 or 2019 for people making under 50,000 and compare that to the wealthiest among us, or whether you look at it in terms of what happens just a few years later in 2025, you can see the basic unfairness of this. Just at a time when we have this great opportunity to do a number of things which would not only turbo charge the economy and potentially lift families out of poverty and certainly children out of poverty, just when you have that opportunity to simplify the code, to help middleclass families in a substantial, robust way, not the stingy way the bill does it, to the point where some might get a tax break one year thats very limited and then that goes away and their taxes go up, and then others are losing health care because of the repeal of the individual mandate. Whats most egregious here is maybe not even the giveaways. Thats egregious enough. But what is outrageous is that the giveaways happen, and the debt is run up to do that, and on top of that we miss an opportunity, as washington does. The old expression, washington never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. This is an opportunity for the middle class, to give them maybe a record tax cut, but the majority has chosen not to do that. This is also an opportunity to lift a lot more children out of poverty with a much more generous Child Tax Credit, a much more substantial commitment to lifting kids out of poverty because we have we have a bill that allows us to do that. A bill tax bill that only comes around once every couple decades potentially. The last time this was done was 31 years ago. So this is a critically important moment for the middle class, a critically important moment for children. Middleclass children but also children from lowincome families who dont get a lot of help under the current under current policy. Now, some people might say well, how have the rich done over the last number of years . Maybe some might want to make the argument, the ridiculous argument, but they might want to make it that somehow the rich need a little help. Lets see what has happened since 1980. Since 1980, the richest 1 have seen their share of National Income almost double, double from 11 to 20 in 2014 the last time this was measured. So the richest 1 in about 35 years have seen their share of all National Income almost double, so the richest 1 have been doing pretty well over the decade since 1980. So do they really need yet another tax cut . Do they really need tens of billions of dollars split or divvied up among a very small number of americans . I dont think so, and i think most americans would agree with me. According to the new york times, no other nation in the 35member organization for Economic Cooperation and development, socalled oecd countries, 35 countries, were one of them, no other country has seen this widening of the gap between the richest and everyone else. And you could see it in the other example. The richest small number in america get 34 billion, and then 90 Million People have to split a number thats less than half that. That is really an insult to who we are as americans. That same j. C. T. , the joint committee on taxation, their estimate of the republican bill shows that households earning over a million would get an average tax cut of about 73 times larger than households earning between 50,000 and 75,000 in 2019, that same year, the first year. So we could go on and on with these comparisons, but i want to go back to the number i started with, that 59,000 number. If you take the dollar sign off and use it for another purpose, you have just arrived at roughly the im sorry. You can keep the dollar sign on it because you have arrived roughly at the Median Household Income for the United States of america. So the Median Household Income is about 59,000. Okay. Thats all across the country, Median Household Income. That number just happens to be roughly the same number as the 5d 456 59,456, the average annual tax cut for those in 2019. There are a lot of other ways to describe the bill. The bill raises 134 billion on the backs of hardworking americans by changing how the tax code measures inflation. Not many people paying attention to this, but the measurement is going to change if the bill passes. Someone who is just starting out in their professional life would see this change haunt their paychecks for the next 50 years. So theyre going to change how the tax code michigans innation measures inflation. Not many people know that. I think theyre starting to find out. If all that wasnt enough, this bill would do a number of other things, which are particularly destructive. It would reward companies who have outsourced jobs. It would increase Health Care Premiums by anage of of an additional 10 a year. And its going to have its going to give at the same time obscene tax cuts to the superrich by increasing and at the same time increasing taxes on the middle class. When i describe this bill last week in the finance committee as a thief in the night, i didnt choose those words casually. I meant every word of it. Thief in the night because the average impact on middleclass families and lowerincome families trying to get to the middle class would be compared to what happens to the wealthiest among us. So it is robbing people of an opportunity to get a better tax cut for the middle class and giving away the toker to the rich. And giving away the store to the rich. I will have more to say to this, but i sigh the majority leader is on the floor. I would yield for the majority leader. Mr. Mcconnell mr. President . The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent that the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the committee on the judiciary be charged from further consideration on h. R. 1829 and the need to its immediate consideration. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk h. R. 1829 an act to amend title 4, United States code, to provide for the flying of the flag at half staff in any event of the death of a First Responder in the live duty. In the line of duty. The presiding officer without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate read proceeds to the measure. Mr. Mcconnell i ask that the bozeman amendment desk be agreed to, the bill as and be considered read a third time and pass and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell now, mr. President , i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until noon tomorrow, wednesday, november 29. Further, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, finally, following leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes eve. Ten minutes each. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell if ness in further business to come before the senate, i ask that is it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senator casey u. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Casey mr. President . Thank you, mr. President. I wanted to go back to a point that i was making a couple minutes ago describing both in terms of the substance of the bill and the process that has been undertaken to pass the bill why i use the expression last week or the week before thanksgiving that this bill was in fact a thief in the night. What i meant by that was in the same bill you have these inequities that i just described where the wealthiest are getting 34 billion in a tax cut, a giveaway eelly, just in the first year and that enthat continues and 90 million and 90 million americans get less than half of that. And thats in my judgment robbing those families of an opportunity to get a bigger tax cut and have the wealthiest among us sacrifice a little bit for the middle class and for those trying to get to the middle class. In addition to that, repealing of the individual mandate has a health care consequence. We know that the Congressional Budget Office told us that because of what would happen as a result of the repeal of the individual mandate, 4 Million People would lose their health care in the first year, 13 million over the course of ten years. So its entirely possible we dont know the exact number, but it is entirely possible that lots of americans would in the same year or certainly over time have two adverse consequences. One, they would either not get much of a tax cut or their tax cut would turn into or any tax change would neuron a tax increase or any tax change would turn into a tax increase and they would lose their because of the effects of one part of the bill. So in at the same time in the same bill where some will lose their health care because of the bill and lowers see their taxes goes up or worse maybe the same thing happening to the same individual, the same family, all that is happening in a bill that is speeding through this chamber. Heres how heres how defective the process has been. The senate bill was introduced on a thursday and then voted out of the finance committee the following nurse thursday and now the majority is trying to pass the bill this thursday. So from thursday to thursday to thursday is the entire can of a bill that has not had one hearing, not a single hearing. Oh, yes we had time in the committee the week before thanksgiving to pose questions to the joint committee on taxation, tax experts for staff, and thats part of the process. But a tax bill like this that comes around every three decades that will have an impact on by one estimate, 9 trillion to 10 trillion. Doesnt have a single hearing and doesnt have the kind of due consideration that would allow people to examine it and allow taxpayers to examine the detail of this bill and the consequences that would flow from that, the adverse consequences, and be able to say, wait a minute. Maybe im one of those people. Maybe im one of those individuals whose taxes go up. Or i dont get much of a tax cut and on off of that i and on top of that i lose my health care. Think any american who would be so adverse arely affected should have the timed and opportunity to examine in legislation. Either themselves or through the debate that is undertaken by senators or through reading news accounts. The 80 good news here is that the only good news hereby is that newspaper a associations across the country and think tanks are providing the American People information. But the debate is so limited that very little of the debate near the senate will land on the kitchen tables of americans who will be affected. So when i say this is a thief in the night, i mean it by way of the substance of the bill where people are robbed of health care potentially and certainly robbed of an opportunity to either get a substantial middleclass tax cut or get now tax cut at all because their Tax Deduction go up and at the same time losing hedge so this whole process has been cloaked in darkness, has been infused with secrecy. I got a letter the other day and a taxpayer said to me, im worried about the impact on and it was a mom talking about her family. Aim worried about the impact on my family and my children. She said, i dont know enough about this. I can sympathize with her because Democratic Senators were in a committee two weeks ago now when this bill was presented to us and not a single hearing on the bill. You know what happened in 1985 and 1986 . President reagan came out with a proposal that was almost 500 pages in length, a lot of detail about his administrations priorities 0ening tax reform. That got 27 hearings in the finance committee. That proposal. Later when the house passed a quill in the in 19 i guess it was the beginning of 1986. They passed a tax reform bill that went to the senate. That house bill in 1986 got six hearings in the finance committee. So if you add the review of the reagan detailed proposal, almost 50 pages, to the actually hearings on the specific bill, youre talking about 33 hearings, the kind of review you would expect id settle for ten or 15 hearings on something this substantial. So were basically saying that were supposed to accept a bill thats gotten very little review and no hearings and then wait for 20 years from now pour years from now to have another opportunity. This is a joke. This is an insult to the American People when autograph bill that will have such an impact on every american getting very little in the way of scrutiny. Mr. President , i know the hour is late. Ill just make a few more points, 77 especially when it comes to our children. Theres been a lost talk about what this bill could do to help children. A lot of americans know about the Child Tax Credit and the earned income tax credit. Those do provisions alone in our law have lifted more children out of poverty than almost anything weve ever done in the United States congress in decades. Literally its had that kind of an impact. So shouldnt we use these two vehicles that have lifted millions of children and families out of poverty, the earned income tax credit and the Child Tax Credit, and strengthen them, make them more robust so that more children could be lifted out of poverty . I think the answer is yes. And we have an opportunity here. Senator brown and senator bennet introduced a bill that then became an amendment in the debate which i joined them on and so many other Democratic Senators joined them on to strengthen are the Child Tax Credit as well as the earned income tax credit. Heres the basic information about where we are with the Child Tax Credit. The proposal by some republican senators to strengthen the Child Tax Credit in the bill p is also woefully deficient, woefully short of what families should expect from a big tax reform bill thats supposed to help folks with the Child Tax Credit. So the Senate Republican plan increases the maximum Child Tax Credit from 1,000 to 2,000 per child. Sounds pretty good so far, right . 1,000 up to 2,000. Sounds pretty good so far. But because the bill limited refundability, a mom working fulltime at minimum wage will only see an additional 75 in Child Tax Credit in the Child Tax Credit while a married couple earning 500,000 would become newly eligible. So wealthy families, up to 500,000 of income, are newly eligible in the republican bill for help with the Child Tax Credit. For the maximum credit of 2,000 per child credit. So the working mom who has a low income, she gets a Child Tax Credit of 75, not much help. Yet the family makings 500,000 would be getting a 2,000 Child Tax Credit. Anyone knows that thats woefully short. We can do better than that. Were a great country. Weve the greatest economy in the world, Strongest Military in the world, and we have a lot of good tax policies that have helped lift families out of poverty. And both parties have helped support those provisions over the years. This s. J. Just a democratic this isnt just a democratic priority. A lot of republicans make it a priority as well. This is the moment to do it. This is a big tax bill. We could make the Child Tax Credit so generous and so substantial that you could turbocharge and use any word you want you could turbocharge the effort to get Young Children out of poverty. But the republicans wont do it because theyre stingy on the Child Tax Credit changes just as theyre stingsy on the middleclass tax cut. So the same source i cited earlier for the november 27 report, the center on budget and policy priorities and you can go to their website. It is easy. Just type in four letters cbfwill pp. Just type in those four letters. You can find those reports. What do they say about the child tax tax credit provisions . It says 10 million children live in families that would get 6. 25 or less per month in additional Child Tax Credit help. Less than one hour of work at the minimum wage. So this brandnew proposal on the Child Tax Credit, thats what it adds up to for 10 million children. 6. 25 or less per month. Even in a really lowincome family, 6. 25 a month doesnt get you much. In terms of help for your children. So, mr. President , weve got a lot to do in a short time frame to let the American People know whats in this bill. And whether its the very limited tax relief for a lot of middleclass families or whether its the outrage that so Many Americans taxes will go up in the bill over time especially or whether its the giveaways to the richest among us, there are so many outrages and so many insults in one bill, its difficult to catalog all of them. So, mr. President , i hope that if we have a vote in the senate floor that this bill would be devoted. Defeated. Just what request happen then . We can get to a different chapter on tax reform just like we started to get to on health care. Everyone said, after the health care boil was voted down in july that somehow thread be no engagement on health care after that. The two sides would go p into their corners and be no discussion. You know what happene you know what happened in hours if not days of that happening . Democrats and republicans came together on health care, that topic where there would be little consensus or bipartisanship or cooperation, they came together and had hearings in early september, in the first two weeks of september. We listened to governors from both parties, insurance commissioners, Health Care Policy experts. Guess what we got . A bipartisan bill to help stabilize the individual market, to make sure we were coming together to try to solve at least one substantial problem in our health care system. Is not cure every problem but come together in a bipartisan way to fix the problem. We could do a similar we could undertake, i should say, a similar process in tax reform. Start on start in december or start in january, whenever the majority would want to start. Have lots of hearings. Examine these issues. Figure out, isnt there a bipartisan way to make the Child Tax Credit more generous . We have a moment here. We have a big bill. We could lift a lot more children out of poverty. Isnt there a way to make the middleclass tax relief much more robust and substantial . Maybe instead of giving a tax cut thats 300 or 400, maybe we could say lets come together in a bipartisan bill and give a tax cut thats worth 1,000 or maybe several thousand dollars to the middle class. We could do that. Democrats and republicans come together. We could even come together on providing corporate relief. No one on our side doesnt believe that corporations should get shouldnt get a break but when you reduce a Corporate Tax break from 35 to 20 , its 100 billion per upon per poi. That forecloses the option of making the middleclass tax cut more generous. It limits your options to help families struggling to get into the middle class, going to work every day, sometimes working two jobs, making the minimum wage or higher than minimum wage, and they need a little bit of help with the Child Tax Credit or other provisions. So, mr. President , we have an opportunity here to do tax reform the right way, not in the dark of night, not a oneparty fiat, one party bill that gets rushed through and were supposed to accept this as good tax policy for the next ten years, 20 years, 30 years. Thats not the way to do tax reform. Thats not the way it was done when Ronald Reagan was here working with democrats and republicans. Thats not the way we should do it. Well have more to say later in the week, mr. President , but at this time i would yield the floor. The presiding officer the Senate Stands adjourned until Senate Stands adjourned until the Senate Confirmed gregory as a judge in the District Of Columbia circuit court. President trump visited with republicans during their party lunch to talk about the tax reform bill. The Senate Budget committee reminded the 1. 5 trillion tax which would allow drilling in the arctic refuge. A vote to to begin debate may happen as early as tomorrow. A few members talked about the text below the floor. Heres john cornyn. Mr. President , this week were engaged in perhaps the most momentous subject that we have dealt with in recent times. After 30 years, 30 years updating andef