Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator from Wisconsin, the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

Mr. President, I want to talk about the importance of passing this tax reform legislation for the people of Colorado. What we have is an opportunity to see real wage growth in this country-- something we haven't seen for far too long. Over the past decade, I think people who are on both sides of the aisle have recognized that while there might be some economic job activity, job creation taking place, while we might see some low economic unemployment numbers in States like Colorado, what we haven't seen is the kind of wage growth we know we can create.

Under the analysis done by nonpartisan think tanks in Colorado, they

estimate that wages would grow--after-tax income--by over $3,000. That is incredible wage growth for families who many people estimate and who other economists have said could see a financial hardship if they were asked to come up with $400. In fact, we know that if over one-third of people in America had to come up with $400 today, it would create a financial crisis in their household.

We heard our colleague from Pennsylvania and our colleague from South Dakota talking about the fact that a family earning a median household income of $73,000 would see a 60-percent reduction in their taxes next year. A single parent with a child, earning $41,000 a year, would see a 75-percent tax cut.

Let me read a headline from a story in Colorado. The headline of this article is ``How Tax Reform Can Empower This Drive-in Theater Owner to Expand Her Business.'' What she is talking about is the fact that if she sees lower taxes at the 88 Drive-in--that is an iconic drive-in in Commerce City, CO. If you see this drive-in, you will know exactly--it is iconic on the landscape. She believes that if her taxes are lower, she will be able to move forward and buy the property next door, which will allow her to expand her business. She talks about the fact that she has to turn people away because so many people are going to it and they don't have enough room. She wants to expand, but she is held back by our uncompetitive Tax Code. If we cut taxes, she will be able to buy land, expand the business, and create more jobs. It is a greater opportunity for her, her family, and the people of Colorado.

This is really an opportunity to see the kind of growth and wage growth that we haven't seen in this country for far too long.

I have held several roundtables on taxes throughout the Eastern Plains of Colorado, where I live. People are worried about their income because they haven't seen the kind of economic growth, the numbers in employment growth that they have in the Front Range, in Denver. I have held roundtables on the Western Slope of Colorado, in Southern Colorado, Northern Colorado, and they are all very worried about a country that is not as competitive as it used to be. They know that with a competitive tax code, they would see those jobs and investment come back into this country once again.

People in Pueblo, CO, know they need jobs brought back into their community because while many areas of Colorado have seen very low unemployment rates, they haven't seen the kind of growth other areas have. They know that with a competitive tax code that brings jobs and money back from overseas, that will provide real relief to a single parent with a child at home and to a family of four working hard to make ends meet. They are going to pay less taxes next year as a result. They are going to be able to spend the money they want to in Pueblo, CO, to put it into an investment that they want to in Brighton, CO. It will be an investment that somebody in Craig, CO, wants to have. That is what they are focused on. They want to get the money into their pockets. They earned it. They should keep it, not Washington, DC, where they make bad decisions on how to spend their hard-earned dollars.

To my colleagues who oppose this bill, we have talked about the opportunities for the American people to see real wage growth. This bill does it. We talked about the opportunity to bring jobs back from overseas. This bill does it. We talked about the opportunity to get businesses hiring again and expanding. Nonpartisan estimates show that this bill would create nearly 1 million jobs--new jobs created by this bill. It is a great opportunity for us, and I thank the people who have worked so hard on this bill, my colleagues in South Dakota, Pennsylvania, and others.

Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Casey be recognized to offer a motion to commit, which is at the desk; that the time until 2:15 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form for debate on the motion; and that at 2:15 p.m., the Senate vote in relation to the motion with no intervening action or debate. I further ask that following disposition of the motion, the majority leader be recognized.

Mr. President, the Judiciary Committee does not have the approval of the Democratic leader to meet; therefore, they will not be permitted to meet past 12:30 p.m. this afternoon.

I ask unanimous consent that the request for authority to meet be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the historic opportunity we have before us to grow the American economy, to create jobs, and to make sure Washington has less money in its pockets and the people across this country have more money in their pockets.

I rise to support the pro-growth tax reform proposal before the Senate. I rise to support modernizing and simplifying the American tax system to make it competitive. I rise to support American workers who haven't seen wage growth for far too long. I rise to support American families.

It has been 30 years since this country last reformed the Tax Code. We haven't modernized our Tax Code in over 30 years, since 1986. Since that time, we have had lobbyists and special interests adding on and building on loopholes and giveaways to what once was a competitive tax system. That 30 years of drag on the Tax Code has made it more out-of- date day by day. It is so out-of-date that American families and businesses now spend 6 billion hours and $263 billion every year just to file their taxes. That is bigger than the economic output of the nation of New Zealand, just to file our taxes every year.

Meanwhile, we have watched the world change since 1986 significantly. Other countries have learned how to use their tax codes to entice U.S. businesses overseas--businesses from around the globe--to their country, to move away from the United States to their countries' more competitive tax code. That disparity between the U.S. Tax Code and foreign tax rates has literally chased jobs and wages out of this country. Companies now not only invest in low-tax foreign countries, but they leave U.S. dollars abroad without bringing them back into the United States. Those billions have piled up, and now it is estimated that there is somewhere around $2.5 trillion in foreign profits being held by U.S. multinationals overseas.

That tells us three things: No. 1, corporations will find low-tax jurisdictions; No. 2, without this reform, it isn't changing anytime soon; No. 3, American workers are the ones who are paying the cost of this failed economic system. It is the American workers who suffer in the form of higher taxes, lower wages, and a less competitive economy.

We have before us an opportunity to change this. This reform will bring the kind of relief Americans have been demanding for a number of years, for over a decade--lower taxes, higher wages, and less time and hassle filing their taxes. This change will mean that a family of four--according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation--earning the median family income of $73,000 would see a tax cut of nearly $2,202. That is a 60-percent cut next year over what they paid last year with the passage of this bill. A single parent with one child and an income of $41,000 will see a cut of more than $1,400, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. That is a cut of 70 percent in their tax rates from what they paid this past year to what they would pay next year. This change will bring thousands of dollars in higher wages as companies begin to invest in America again.

The Council of Economic Advisers has estimated that just lowering the corporate rate alone would raise average income around $4,000 to $4,385 in my home State of Colorado. The academic literature supporting that analysis suggests the gains could even be bigger. This change will reduce the wasted billions of hours spent filling out the paperwork, dotting the i's and crossing the t's, just to file your taxes.

The Council of Economic Advisers estimates that after passage of this bill, about 92 percent of taxpayers will use the standard deduction rate rather than itemize their taxes, and because the standard deduction will have been expanded, they will end up being better off.

It shouldn't be more fun going to the dentist than it is figuring out your taxes. We can't let this moment pass without bringing this relief to America's taxpayers. Doing that would only chase more dollars and jobs out of the country. The result of voting against this reform can be summed up in the information I have right next to me.

Here is the first one. This shows how our corporate tax rate over time--since the 1980s and 1990s--has stayed flat, has stayed the same, while OECD nations and while our competitors have lowered their rates and become more and more competitive over time. Countries like France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, and country after country have lowered their corporate tax rates far less than our rates today. Indeed, the average European corporate statutory rate is around 18 or 19 percent. The United States remains stuck at 35 percent--the highest statutory tax rate in the industrialized world.

When a company decides it wants to expand or buy new equipment, it looks at these rates to see how much extra revenue it needs to generate in order to make the expansion profitable. The higher the rate, the harder it is to generate enough revenue to justify the investment.

It doesn't take much more than this chart alone to know that investing abroad has made a lot of sense to far too many people. Businesses have responded to this. They have moved. As a result, business investment in capital in the United States is at a low. Investments in new structures, equipment, and intellectual property have some of its lowest rates we have seen.

Indeed, Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Kevin Hassett recently warned that there is a ``crisis in our country'' because of the lack of what is called ``capital deepening''--which is what an economist would use for the term meaning the impact of capital stock--on worker productivity. Worker productivity, in turn, is what drives up wages. That makes sense. The more productive a worker is, the more the employer is willing to pay that worker to keep him or her.

That leads us to the other piece of information that is important to look at. You can see the effects here. The relationship between corporate profits and wages has broken down over the past couple of decades. Prior to 1990, when corporate profits went up by 1 percent, wages went up by more than 1 percent, but that has changed because of our uncompetitive tax system. From 2008 to 2016, a 1-percent increase in corporate profits corresponded with only a 0.3-percent increase in worker wages. When we hear about a growing income inequality, which is something we have to address, this is part of the story. This is part of the reason we have income inequality, because that ratio has shifted as a result of people going overseas, money being kept overseas, and our tax rates simply being out-of-date and out of order.

One of the biggest culprits is that corporate tax rate. It is what causes that disconnect between profits and wages. Businesses are investing those dollars overseas, and they lay off workers in the United States, expanding in Poland instead of Portland or not just expanding at all. No matter which option they choose, the American worker loses out. That is why experts say employees bear 45 percent to 75 percent of the burden of corporate taxes--because businesses invest in them less the higher the tax rate goes.

That brings us to the third point of information. The empirical evidence is remarkably clear. Countries with lower tax rates have much higher wage increases than countries with higher corporate tax rates. High-tax countries, like the United States, have weak wage growth, less than 1 percent--even close to zero. You can see this. The highest statutory corporate tax rate countries in the world have less than 1- percent wage growth. High-tax countries, like the United States, have that extremely weak wage growth. Low-tax countries, though, see the wage growth of 1 percent, 1.5 percent, 2 percent, 4 percent, and that is because low-tax countries create an environment that encourages businesses to grow and to expand, while high-tax countries, like the United States, chase money out of the country.

Over the last several years, we have been told we need to get used to low wages--that we have to get used to low wages and low GDP growth. We have been told we just need to accept a secular stagnation theory; that the American economy's prime has gone away. I don't believe that. I don't think anybody in this country should believe that. I believe our economy's best days are ahead of us if we pass the kind of policies we can this week.

Until we get our Tax Code competitive again, there are people who are going to think the secular stagnation is all we can get. They will be stuck with low growth, low wages. Bipartisan groups have pushed for ways to change this: Simpson-Bowles Commission, Wyden-Coats, even President Obama himself called for tax cuts in his 2011 State of the Union Address. In fact, President Obama's economic adviser, Larry Summers, said that reducing the corporate tax rate and lowering the competitive disadvantage faced by American multinationals is ``about as close to a free lunch as tax reformers will ever get.''

Here we stand at the end of this reform process, and the opponents of this reform simply pound their fists on their desks and shoot off standard talking points about millionaires and billionaires. They told us from the outset, in a letter to Senator McConnell, that they didn't want to cut taxes for everyone, so they wouldn't play a meaningful part in crafting the package. What a shame that has been. They could have worked with us, offered proposals that would help us find that solution that benefits all. They rail against different specifics, often mixing up what is in the House proposal with what is in the Senate's proposal because it is politically expedient.

There really have been no honest, substantive amendments to make the bill better, as we have asked time and time again. It is unclear if they will even support amendments that mirror the bills they themselves have introduced because I am afraid the opponents aren't interested in making the bill better. They are interested in a political fight and continuing to see Americans suffer under low wages and high taxes, but they don't tell us why, other than ``just not this bill.''

We have a chance to help the middle class. We have a chance to cut taxes, to grow the economy. For Coloradans, it means more jobs, it means higher wages, it means true economic growth. Let's get away from that Atari-era 1986 Tax Code, and let's put forth something that works for this generation, the next generation, building competitiveness, building opportunity, and building an America we were all proud of.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have 4 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 30, 2017, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 30, 2017, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: M. Lee McClenny, of Washington, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Paraguay, Carlos Trujillo, of Florida, to be Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States, with the rank of Ambassador, and Kenneth J. Braithwaite, of Pennsylvania, to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of Norway, all of the Department of State, and Brock D. Bierman, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development.

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 30, 2017, at 10 a.m. in room SD-430 to conduct a hearing.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 30, 2017, at 2 p.m., in room SH-219 to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to join in a colloquy with my freshmen colleagues.

Mr. President, I want to talk about the last time we did tax reform, in 1986. In 1986, I was in the sixth grade. I had just come back from Camp Cheley, from sixth grade camp. I think the Atari 7800 was the popular model that we all wanted for Christmas. I believe the Ford LTD station wagon was rolling off the assembly lines that year. ``Top Gun'' was No. 1 at the box office.

That was 1986. It is important because that is the last time we did tax reform in this Chamber. That is the last time we enacted meaningful, comprehensive tax reform.

This Congress has an incredible opportunity before us today. Our colleagues have an opportunity to grow this economy, to get wages growing again, and to create opportunity for the American people that they haven't seen in far too long.

Over the past decade, Americans have been working harder than they ever have before, but they have watched as the haves have more and the have-nots have less, and they are tired of it. We have seen stagnant wages and work hours growing. That is what this debate is about. It is about people who want to stand up for Coloradans and people around this country to make sure we grow this economy so people can stop working two or three jobs that they have to now just to try to make ends meet, so they can finally start to see wages grow.

I am going to be joined throughout this afternoon's debate by the class of 2014, Members of the Senate who were elected in 2014 as a result of a message of economic opportunity--Senators from Georgia and North Carolina and West Virginia and Arkansas elected because we believed in an America that was growing again. We believed in an America that didn't have to settle for second place, it didn't have to settle for mediocrity or decline, but an America that with the right economic policies, the right tax policies, we could lift the burdens off the backs of the American people, off the backs of American businesses, and get this country back to work. That is what this debate is about.

Over the past several weeks, we have heard a lot of debate about what the Senate bill is going to be, what the House bill is going to be. Over the past several years, the Senate Finance Committee has held over 70 committee hearings on the issue of tax reform, countless reports, paperwork done, economic models to show what this tax reform needed to look like. We have had open debates from both sides of the aisle, a chance to say how do we reduce the tax burden on the American people and get this economy moving again.

What the Senate has come up with is a package that is estimated to create 1 million jobs across this country--1 million jobs across this country--according to the Tax Foundation. In Colorado, that means a $3,000-plus increase in average aftertax income. If you don't think $3,000 is a heck of a lot of money to people, look at the statistics.

The statistics show that the average American family--a significant percentage of them; percentages of American families--don't have 24- hour access to just a few hundred dollars. They can't find--they don't have access to just a couple hundred dollars in a 24-hour time period. One-third of Americans, if they had to come up with $500 today, it would be a fiscal crisis for their household.

We are talking about an opportunity to grow wages. In fact, the Tax Foundation says a 4.4-percent increase in average aftertax income will occur as a result of the Senate bill.

I will yield to my colleague from Georgia. We are going to get this easel out of his way, but first I want to show one chart that shows how wage growth can happen.

If you look across the world and you see nations that have low statutory tax rates and you see nations that have high statutory tax rates, you will see that those nations that have the lowest statutory corporate tax rates see the highest wage growth. People who work in these countries with low statutory tax rates, they see the highest average wage growth. Countries with high statutory tax rates--this red line right here--their wage growth is less than 1 percent. Do you know where the United States falls? The United States falls as the highest statutory corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. Our wage growth is at the bottom.

Low tax rates result in high wage growth. This fight is for the middle class of America. This fight is for hard-working American families. This fight is to grow wages across the State of Colorado, from the Eastern Plains to the Western Slope, and around the country. I hope all of us will be engaged in this fight.

I am going to turn this debate over to our colleague from Georgia who has experience in business and who understands how taxes work and who understands how to make sure he is providing for the people of Georgia.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for that, and I recognize the Senator from West Virginia for comments on why this is important to the country.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia.

I ask unanimous consent that at 2:50 p.m., Senator Rounds be recognized as the leader of the colloquy.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a historic opportunity that will soon be before this body. It is an opportunity to bring real relief to the American people. It is an opportunity to jolt our economy into a higher gear and bring real, tangible benefits to America's hard-working families.

It has been over 30 years since this country last reformed its Tax Code. Over those 30 years, we have seen a lot of change. We have seen the country move from Ataris to smartphones and Wi-Fi. This photo shows a Ford LTD station wagon, which rolled off the assembly line 30 years ago. It is a car that any of us would have been excited to drive 30 years ago. Today we have cars that drive themselves. Unfortunately, we still have a tax code that is made for this LTD.

So while the world has changed around us and other countries have learned to craft tax codes to entice businesses to grow, our code has gotten more and more out of date and more and more laden with special- interest giveaways. Our Tax Code has turned Main Street into a dead end and our overseas growth into a one-way street.

Reforming the code is not only a way to give us an opportunity to end those giveaways, but it can also boost our economy. I applaud our colleagues in the House, who last week introduced and are working on a proposal to overhaul the tax system. In the coming days the Senate Finance Committee will introduce their own legislation.

While I will mostly focus my comments today on one aspect of tax reform, I will note that on Friday the Tax Foundation released its analysis of the House tax proposal. This analysis concluded that the House proposal would create 975,000 full-time-equivalent jobs and push GDP 3.9 percent higher than it would otherwise be. Taking into account the economic feedback from the proposed reforms, this means taxpayers would end up with 4.4 percent higher income. In other words, they will make greater, higher income as a result of the bill that the House is working on today. Indeed, the Tax Foundation concluded that the total after-tax gain in income for a middle-class family would be nearly $2,600.

Importantly, for my constituents in my home State of Colorado, the gain would be over $3,000. These are serious gains that will bring real, meaningful benefits to hard-working Americans. This is just the starting point for our reform. This number is over $3,000 of impact to the people of Colorado of additional income and tax relief. When a significant segment of Americans don't even have access within 24 hours to just a few hundred dollars, a $3,000 a year gain is a significant amount of money.

Today I would like to focus on one part of the tax reform package, and that is the lowering of taxes on America's job creators. Because we have this clunky Atari-era Tax Code--this Ford LTD station wagon Tax Code, our tax rates are no longer competitive. They encourage companies to invest abroad rather than right here at home in the United States. Back in 1986, when this car rolled off the assembly line, our corporate rate was competitive. It didn't discourage companies from investing in the United States.

Things have significantly changed since 1986. Foreign countries have figured it out. They lowered their tax rates, and now the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the

developed world--indeed, one of the highest tax rates in the world, period. Consequently, businesses have moved abroad more and more. They invested more abroad, and in the United States they have invested less and less.

It is not in the Republicans' view alone. I would draw your attention to this quote right here. President Obama noted this gradual deterioration of the corporate tax code in his 2011 State of the Union Address, saying:

[O]ver the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax

code to benefit particular companies and industries. Those

with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up

paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one

of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes

no sense, and it has to change.

Those are the words that President Barack Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress in 2011 in his State of the Union Address.

The Council of Economic Advisers estimates that just moving the tax rates on corporations from the uncompetitive 35 percent to the middle- of-the-pack 20 percent and adding permanent full expensing of capital investments would increase GDP from 3 percent to 5 percent above what is currently forecasted. That increase would not just happen in a decade or two, it would be front-loaded, meaning that we would see a fast response from this economy, with 2.4 percent to 3.2 percent higher GDP in the first 3 to 5 years under this proposal. That boost will not just be to the corporate bottom line. It will increase the average American household income by $4,000.

Let me say that again. It will increase average household income in America by $4,000.

Since these estimates were released, since those numbers, statistics, and analysis have been done, opponents of pro-growth tax reform have thrown everything they can at the proposals and estimates to see what will stick to try to bring it down. They said these numbers are too rosy. They said that we can't possibly get a $4,000 increase in average household income because that would mean more money would end up in bank accounts of American households than is raised in revenue by the corporate income tax.

They said that corporations have been ``rolling in money'' for a long time. So if they wanted to invest in America they already would have. Some opponents say we should tax corporations more--take the profit that is sitting overseas and spend it as the government wishes. When opponents of tax relief see a company with money, their reaction is to take it--to take it like it is the Government's money. But we know that doesn't work. Even our European friends, whose residents tend to be far more open to socialist experiments, have rejected this notion. They know that tax reform is about creating the environment that will cause companies to invest in America, not attempting to seize profits from companies that can easily move elsewhere. That is why France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Greece--not exactly bastions of open economic innovation--have lower corporate tax rates than we do.

The chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Kevin Hassett, told the Joint Economic Committee recently:

This is not about right wing parties throwing money at rich

corporations. It is about economically literate governments

understanding that if we want wages to be higher, than we

have to give workers capital to work with.

Let me say that again. This effort for tax relief is about ``economically literate governments understanding that if we want wages to be higher, then we have to give workers capital to work with.''

Let's go back to the first response we heard from opponents of tax relief: It is ``absurd'' to think the average American household will get $4,000 more in income because that is more than the country raises in tax revenue.

In other words, if we took every dollar raised from corporate tax and handed it over to American families, they wouldn't get $4,000. That is the argument opponents of tax reform are saying, but this response simply doesn't get it.

What is the economically literate perspective?

Recall that a lot has changed over the last 30 years, but one thing hasn't changed, and that is the U.S. corporate tax rate. As you can see on this chart, the average OECD tax rates have dropped over time. You see the blue OECD line, and the orange line on the chart is straight across. The average OECD tax rates have dropped over time, but the U.S. rate stayed right where it is. The U.S. advantages that made it the place to invest in 1986 have slowly faded away. Other countries have used their tax rates to become more competitive, and companies have responded.

Business investment now is unfortunately low. Indeed, Chairman Hassett warned that there is a crisis in our country because of the lack of what is called capital deepening, which is just an economist's term for the impact of capital stock--things such as equipment, structures, and intellectual property--on worker productivity.

Worker productivity is, in turn, what drives up wages. That is what makes wages increase. The more productive a worker is, the more the employer is willing to pay that worker to keep him or her in the job with rising wages.

Going to another chart, we can see the effects of that. Prior to 1990, when corporate profits were going up by 1 percent, workers' wages went up by more than 1 percent. Since that time in the 1990s, we have seen change. From 2008 to 2016, a 1-percent increase in business profits corresponded with only a 0.3 percent increase in workers' wages. One of the biggest culprits in this is the corporate tax rate. It is what causes that disconnect between corporate profits and workers' wages.

When a company decides whether and where to invest in new buildings, equipment, and research, they look at the tax rate to know what return is needed to make that investment profitable. The higher the tax, the higher the needed return. So companies facing higher taxes either don't invest at all or they invest in another country. That is why experts say that workers bear 45 percent to 75 percent of the burden of corporate taxes, because businesses invest in them less and less, the higher the tax. It is as if the corporate tax rate casts a shadow on the entire economy.

We can see that shadow here. This is the way economists model the market for capital--factories, equipment, buildings, IP. The higher the price, the less the companies demand. The lower the price, the more the companies demand. This is a simple concept.

Suppliers of those things are the reverse. If they have to sell at a low price, they don't make very much, but if they can sell at a high price, they make more. These two should meet in the middle, but they don't meet in the middle today because the government has come in and imposed a corporate tax. So each unit of capital costs more than it should because of this tax system. That means businesses only want this much. The producers only get this much. The government takes the rest.

What is left? We can see right here what the government is taking. We can see the effect that taxes have on the economy. What is left is this dark-shaded triangle. This is what economists call deadweight loss. That is the stuff that doesn't happen because of the tax. This is the tax shadow--the deadweight loss. It is deadweight in our economy. In that shadow, business activity just doesn't happen, and workers just don't get the capital they need to be more productive.

Remember, businesses are deciding whether and where to invest that next dollar. If the cost is too high--reflected here--they won't invest, at least not here in the United States. They will decide not to expand at all, or they will expand in a country that has a lower tax rate, or they will simply shut down entirely.

I don't think the American people would be surprised by this. This is not news to them. They lived this for a long time. They know it well. They know businesses are not expanding here. They have seen businesses close. They have seen a slowdown in the startup of new businesses. They know wages haven't gone up in many years.

They understand this shadow. Businesses don't expand. Workers are laid off. Money moves abroad. It is because of this high tax that doesn't leave us with decreases in costs, creating a deadweight loss on our economy. They understand it, and they know that corporations pass that tax on to them in the form of lower wages.

But here is the good news. Help is on the way. Lowering the corporate tax rate lowers the rate of return needed to make investments work. It removes the shadow that blocks the economic sunlight. Suddenly businesses are operating here in the green.

More investment in factories, buildings, equipment, and IP means more Americans are more productive, and that makes total sense. You get more done when you have a new computer than when you have an old clunky one. You produce more when you have a new machine on the line. Workers become more productive, and the companies pay them more both because they are bringing in more and because they want to keep those workers to do more. That is what happens when you lift that economic shadow that we talked about that corporate taxes impose and cast on our economy. You create more jobs, and wage competition grows income.

This isn't just economic theory. As you can see here on this chart, wage increases are significantly higher in countries with lower corporate tax rates. We don't need just simple economic theory; we need economic results, and that is what this chart shows us. High-tax countries like the United States have weak wage growth. The United States is down here on this chart representing the highest statutory corporate rate countries. High-tax countries like the United States have weak wage growth--less than 1 percent, even close to zero percent. You can see that here. Low-tax countries--these are the lowest statutory corporate rate countries. These are the bottom 10 lowest rates. Low-tax-rate countries see a wage growth of 1 percent, 1.5 percent, 3.5 percent, even 4 percent, and that is because they don't live under that economic dead weight, that tax shadow, that deadweight loss zone of high corporate taxes.

It also matches my experience in talking with companies in Colorado. U.S. multinational corporations doing business in Colorado have told me that they want to expand here, but they just can't justify it when they look at the tax rates we have here versus around the world, especially in Europe. I have even heard from some foreign-based companies that do business in Colorado that this sort of reform--I ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks.

Mr. President, it would entice them to invest more in the United States. This is real, and the American people need it.

It is good television to say that it is absurd to think that American families will get more money from lowering the corporate rate than the tax raised in revenue, but it is wrong. It is tempting to look at a stash of corporate profits and think that corporations just must not want to invest here or ``let's just take that money,'' but that is wrong too. The right move is to create the tax environment that tells businesses that they should invest here because they can make more money. That is why President Obama called for corporate tax reform. That is why former Treasury Secretary--and one of President Obama's economic advisers--Larry Summers said that reducing the corporate tax rate and lowering the competitive disadvantage faced by American multinationals is ``about as close to a free lunch as tax reformers will ever get.'' That is what we do by lowering the tax rate. That is how American families end up with $4,000 more in their pockets--and not just one time; once this fully takes effect, that increase is permanent.

Mr. President, we have a historic opportunity. The American people need and deserve a new and better Tax Code, a modern one designed for today's world, not an Atari world or a Ford LTD world.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with us as we modernize our Tax Code and deliver real results for the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tom Kourlis, a member of my staff, be given floor privileges for the rest of the day.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to complete my remarks prior to the vote.

Mr. President, I will be brief in my remarks. We are about to vote on the confirmation of Allison Eid to become a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which is housed in Denver, CO.

I have had the privilege and honor of knowing Justice Eid for over a decade. Justice Eid now serves on the Colorado Supreme Court. I have known Justice Eid since the time I was a young law student, 6 foot 4 and with black hair. That is how long I have known Justice Eid. I am very honored to have worked with her.

I know that a lot of my classmates who had her as a professor are people who shared political perspectives that were far different from Justice Eid's, but they never criticized her teaching. They always found her to be openminded and open to debate of other's views.

Most importantly, what Justice Eid will do, once confirmed to the Tenth Circuit Court, is to make sure that she rules based on the law, not on personal opinion or preferences but how the law dictates. That is the kind of judge she will be and continues to be, from the supreme court to the circuit court. She will be somebody who is a guardian of the Constitution, as our Founders were hoping we would see on our Federal courts when they wrote the Constitution.

I have a letter that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record. It is from the National Native American Bar Association in support of Ms. Eid's nomination.

I ask for the support of my colleagues for Justice Eid's confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Mr. President, I have 4 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 2, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Mark T. Esper, of Virginia, to be Secretary of the Army, Robert L. Wilkie, of North Carolina, to be Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, Joseph Kernan, of Florida, to be Under Secretary for Intelligence, and Guy B. Roberts, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary, all of the Department of Defense.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 2, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 to hold a hearing.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 2, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 to conduct a hearing on S. 807 and the following nominations: of Gregory G. Katsas, of Virginia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, Jeffrey Uhlman Beaverstock, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Alabama, Emily Coody Marks, and Brett Joseph Talley, both to be a United States District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama, Holly Lou Teeter, to be United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, and Matthew G. T. Martin, to be United

States Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina, and Christina E. Nolan, to be United States Attorney for the District of Vermont, both of the Department of Justice.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 2, 2017, at 2 p.m., in room SH-219 to conduct a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice and my strong support for the confirmation of Colorado Supreme Court Justice Allison Eid as the next U.S. court of appeals judge for the Tenth Circuit Court, which, of course, is housed in Denver, CO.

There is no doubt that Justice Eid is superbly qualified for this position. For the past decade, she has served Colorado as a justice on the supreme court. In 2008, Justice Eid was overwhelmingly retained by the people of Colorado. We have a system where every decade the voters of Colorado vote to retain or dismiss a judge, and every time that has come before the people of Colorado, she has been overwhelmingly retained by the people of Colorado.

Prior to her appointment, Justice Eid represented the State of Colorado before the State federal courts as our State solicitor general. She served as a tenured member of the faculty at the University of Colorado Law School, where she taught courses in constitutional law, legislation, torts, and she has published scholarly articles on topics such as constitutional federalism and tort law, in addition to being a clerk on the Supreme Court. She also practiced commercial and appellate litigation at the Denver office of the national law firm Arnold and Porter.

She began her legal career as a clerk to Judge Jerry E. Smith on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Her law experience took her to the U.S. Supreme Court under Clarence Thomas. Prior to attending law school, Justice Eid was a special assistant and speechwriter for the U.S. Secretary of Education, Bill Bennett. She received her law degree from the University of Chicago Law School, where she was the articles editor of the Law Review. She graduated with high honors and as a member of the Order of the Coif. She received her degree in American studies from Stanford University, graduating with distinction as a member of Phi Beta Kappa.

What her resume clearly shows is that whatever Justice Eid does, she does it at the highest level, with the best results. She has specialized knowledge of federalism, water law, and Indian law, among other important areas of the law. Indeed, the National Native American Bar Association has even noted that she has ``significantly more experience with Indian law cases than any other recent Circuit Court nominee.''

We have had some pretty doggone good circuit court nominees in the past, including Justice Neil Gorsuch, whose seat she will be filling on the Tenth Circuit Court. These are concepts that are critical to my home State of Colorado, and her expertise will prove to be invaluable to the Tenth Circuit Court, as well as to the Nation and the people of this country.

But as impressive as her credentials are, it is her demeanor and her approach to the law that make her ideally suited for the court. Justice Eid has been called a ``mainstream, commonsense Westerner.'' She is also, as her former law clerks have noted, ``fiercely independent,'' and she will decide cases ``as she believes the law requires.'' At the same time, she seeks out different viewpoints and wants to understand all sides of the issue she addresses.

That is the law professor I know from my days at the University of Colorado School of Law. I can say from that experience that while Justice Eid has her perspectives on the law, she cares very deeply about robust debate and hearing the views of others. And I know from my classmates who had Justice Eid as their professor--those classmates didn't always agree with her perspectives, but Justice Eid was open to their debate and hearing their views. She engaged them, and she was never biased against differing perspectives but always applying the law as the law required, not as opinions suited.

I also know that ``fiercely independent'' jurist whom her former clerks spoke so highly of. Justice Eid will follow the law regardless of the popular wind, regardless of personal opinion. Whether considering the plain meaning of a statute, discerning the proper role of the courts, the legislative branch, or the executive and its agencies, or evaluating the relationships between the Federal Government and the States, Justice Eid will side with what the law says, and she will do it in that commonsense, western way that clearly and articulately tells the American people what the law is.

I am privileged to know Justice Eid. I have known her for a number of years now from my days as a student at the University of Colorado School of Law and through her work in the State of Colorado at the time that I served in the State legislature. She is an incredible human being with a delightful demeanor that will suit the court well.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record several letters in support of Justice Eid's nomination: a letter to Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein from former law clerks of Justice Eid's, as well as a letter from various supporters in Colorado and one letter from the Southern Ute Indian Tribe.

Mr. President, I wish to spend some time talking about a letter dated July 27, 2017. This letter was sent to me and my colleague, Senator Bennet from Colorado. This letter was titled ``Support for the Confirmation of Justice Allison Eid to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals,'' which I have

submitted for the Record, but I want to highlight some of the people who have signed this letter because when it comes to the courts and nominations, I think it is very important that we listen to the voices of those people who are closest to the court over which the nominee may be presiding. It is also important that those who are closest to a practicing lawyer provide their opinions of a lawyer who has been nominated for the bench who is not already on the bench.

In the case of Justice Eid's supporters, there is an incredible list of people from across the political spectrum--both sides of the aisle-- supporting Justice Eid. Let me talk about a few of Justice Eid's supporters, because we will hear a lot of debate about groups who support or oppose Justice Eid, but the people who know her the best, the people who have practiced before her court, the people who have worked with her over the many years of public service that she has provided don't just fall on the Republican side of the aisle or the Democratic side of the aisle, the support she has gathered is from across the political spectrum.

There is Michael Bender, former Colorado Supreme Court justice; Justice Rebecca Love Kourlis, one of the most respected jurists in Colorado, who served on the State supreme court and is one of the most highly regarded justices not only in Colorado but across the country, quite frankly; Justice Mary Mullarkey. Justice Mullarkey is no longer on the Colorado Supreme Court, but she served as the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court. She was appointed by a Democratic Governor. She is someone who believes Justice Eid would be an incredible addition to the court. There is Neal Katyal, a former Department of Justice civil servant for the Obama administration--a U.S. Solicitor General, in fact. If we look at the other supporters she has, we see that Melissa Hart, who has run for office as a Democratic candidate, supports the nomination and confirmation of Justice Allison Eid.

As you can see, the Tenth Circuit has an incredible nominee before it whom I hope this body will soon confirm. I urge my colleagues to move quickly during this cloture time so that we can actually approve somebody who I know will do an outstanding job. I urge their support. I hope we will do our duty under our Constitution to select those people who will be guarding the Constitution and do it in a way that we can all be proud of. That is why I support Allison Eid.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 1,

2017, at 10 a.m., in room SR-253 to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: James Bridenstine, of Oklahoma, to be Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Dana Baiocco, of Ohio, to be a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and Nazakhtar Nikakhtar, of Maryland, and Neil Jacobs, of North Carolina, both to be an Assistant Secretary of Commerce.

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 1, 2017, at 10 a.m., to vote on the following nominations: David J. Ryder, of New Jersey, to be Director of the Mint, Department of the Treasury, and Hester Maria Peirce, of Ohio, and Robert J. Jackson, Jr., of New York, both to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 1, 2017, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Scott Garrett, of New Jersey, to be President, Kimberly A. Reed, of West Virginia, to be First Vice President, Mark L. Greenblatt, of Maryland, to be Inspector General, and Spencer Bachus III, of Alabama, Judith Delzoppo Pryor, of Ohio, and Claudia Slacik, of New York, each to be a Member of the Board of Directors, all of the Export-Import Bank.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 1, 2017, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Irwin Steven Goldstein, of New York, to be Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, Rebecca Eliza Gonzales, of Texas, to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of Lesotho, Lisa A. Johnson, of Washington, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Namibia, James Randolph Evans, of Georgia, to be Ambassador to Luxembourg, and Sean P. Lawler, of Maryland, to be Chief of Protocol, and to have the rank of Ambassador during his tenure of service, all of the Department of State.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 1, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Leonard Steven Grasz, of Nebraska, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, Terry A. Doughty, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, Terry Fitzgerald Moorer, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Alabama, and Mark Saalfield Norris, Sr., to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee.

Committee on Indian Affairs

The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 1, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-628 to conduct a hearing entitled ``Building Tribal economies: Modernizing tax policies that work for Indian country.''

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 1, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in room SH-216 to conduct a hearing entitled ``Social Media Influence in the 2016 U.S. Elections.''

Subcommittee on Multilateral International Development, Multilateral

Institutions, and International Economic, Energy, and Environmental

Policy

The Subcommittee on Multilateral International Development, Multilateral Institutions, and International Economic, Energy, and Environmental Policy of the Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate Wednesday, November 1, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about the Healthcare Tax Relief Act, legislation I introduced to delay the health insurance tax that was created by the Affordable Care Act.

This tax is often referred to as the HIT tax. The HIT tax imposes fees on health insurance coverage to consumers. It is a pretty simple business concept that this HIT tax results in. If a fee increases on an insurance policy and the fee goes up--there is a fee charged to the company that issues this insurance policy--then that fee gets passed on to the consumer. It is the consumer, then, who pays the fee in the form of higher health insurance costs.

As is the case with most excise taxes, whether it is an excise tax on food or beverage or any other item of personal good, if this health insurance tax takes effect, costs will be passed on to consumers directly in the form of higher premiums. That is confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office.

This is one of the cost drivers that was built into the Affordable Care Act. This health insurance tax would directly increase the premiums of the consumer's insurance product. This tax was supposed to begin a few years back in 2014. It was going to start at $8 billion, and by 2018 the tax would reach $14.3 billion. However, Congress recognized that this tax was going to have a significant impact on the price of coverage and, as a result, suspended the tax from taking effect in 2017. Without congressional action to delay or stop or prevent this ObamaCare tax from taking place again, this tax will take effect in 2018.

According to nonpartisan actuarial analysis conducted by Oliver Wyman,

an estimated 157 million Americans will be affected by this massive tax. Even more middle-income earners across this country, 157 million Americans and working Americans, are expected to shoulder the weight of this tax.

Oliver Wyman estimated that premiums will rise by 3 percent in each year; 2018, 2019, and 2020. That is 3 percent each year. That is 9 percent over 3 years.

To put this in simple perspective, in Colorado alone, premiums in the individual market rose by 34 percent from plan year 2017 to plan year 2018. Adding an additional 3 percent every year for those 3 years would leave those on the individual market paying nearly 43.3 percent, on average, more year to year if combined with the 2018 increases at the end of that 3-year, 9-percent increase run.

What is more, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, the average individual market premiums have increased by 105 percent from 2013 to 2017. Think about that. When the Affordable Care Act passed, when ObamaCare was passed, a promise was made that the average family would see a decrease in their healthcare costs of $2,500 per family, but, instead, from 2013 to 2017, they saw a 105-percent increase in costs. If the health insurance tax takes effect, as planned by ObamaCare, then we would see another 9-percent increase over the next several years on top of that.

Without congressional action to delay this tax, estimates show that costs will rise between $200 and $300 annually for individuals and $500 annually for families. That is a $200 to $300 increase for individuals and a $500 increase annually for families.

To put that into some perspective, 25 percent of Americans don't have access--emergency access--to $100. In an emergency, 25 percent of Americans don't have immediate access to $100. Yet here we are talking about a mandated law--you have to have insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act--but this law would then increase costs $200 to $300 on an individual and $500 annually for families.

Statistics from the Federal Reserve show how much of a hardship this would create. The Federal Reserve found that 46 percent of Americans did not have enough money to cover a $400 emergency expense. Yet the ObamaCare HIT tax would increase family insurance costs by $500. Forty- six percent of Americans don't have access to $400 in an emergency. Yet the ObamaCare HIT tax would increase it by $500.

This tax has the potential to push over half of Americans into financial ruin, and it would be negligent for Congress to allow this tax to take effect. The financial threat this tax imposes on hard- working families is a far cry from that bold promise that was made to reduce costs by $2,500 per family--one of the biggest Pinocchios, so to speak, of the Affordable Care Act. At a time when we know that almost half of Americans could not shoulder a $400 emergency expense, it would simply be irresponsible to allow this ObamaCare HIT tax to take effect.

Furthermore, the impacts of this tax touch our seniors who have earned their benefits as well. For seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans--and Medicare Advantage is one of the most popular aspects of Medicare--premiums are expected to rise by roughly $370 a year per enrollee if Congress doesn't find a resolution. In many cases, these are fixed-income individuals who would see their premiums increase $370 a year because of the ObamaCare HIT tax.

In addition, seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D prescription drug plans can expect their premiums to increase as well. Hit them on their Medicare plans and hit them on the prescription drug plans--higher costs due to this ObamaCare HIT tax.

Even more, the impacts of the health insurance tax have large-scale consequences in the workplace as well. A study by the National Federation of Independent Business found that allowing the HIT tax to take effect could result in job losses for as many as 283,000 people by 2023. This tax could have the impact of costing 286,000 jobs by 2023. Research and analysis from our most respected actuaries continue to validate the negative consequences of the health insurance tax.

On behalf of all hard-working Americans, I call upon my colleagues in the Senate to join me in cosponsoring this commonsense piece of legislation, the Healthcare Tax Relief Act. Healthcare plans are being finalized right now for the 2018 rate year, and it is urgent for Congress to take action so that consumers are not saddled with yet one more cost that they can't afford.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have had a little bit of time to listen to some of the speeches that have been given on the floor today, and I just want to talk about a few of those today.

My great colleague from Maryland, with whom I have enjoyed the privilege of serving on the Foreign Relations Committee, talked about an open process and at the same time talked about being able to offer amendments. The definition of an open process is being able to offer amendments and that is what we are going through. We are going through later this week something called a vote-arama, where we will be having amendments.

We talked about the permanent tax changes.

I am pleased to yield.

If the Senator would like to work with us on fixing the budget process, I hope he will. I hope we can change the budget process. It is fundamentally broken. We haven't changed it since 1974, the year I was born--maybe a few years after that. We ought to change this process so it works for the American people. We ought to do something to make this process more effective.

We have heard people come and talk about Medicare and Medicaid. These are very critically important social safety nets for this country. People in my community, my parents, our families, and people we have lived with and known for our entire lives rely on Medicaid and Medicare, but there is this big myth out there that Washington has this ability to increase funds but yet rename it as a cut. You have a group of people in Washington, DC, who are trying that Washington, DC, Kabuki dance, where they say a decrease in the rate of increase is a cut. That is like saying that my son, who is 6 years old, is supposed to grow 4 inches next year, and the doctor says: Your son is going to grow 4 inches next year, based on the charts. If my son grows only 2 inches that year, did he shrink? No. He still grew. But in Washington, DC, they would say: No, he is shorter than he was. This is absurd.

Let's be honest with the American people. Medicare increases in funding. We are trying to be more responsible with the dollars we have because the United States is in debt, and the way we are going to fix that is to be responsible with the dollars we have and to grow our economy.

A couple of weeks ago, I saw a map of the United States. It showed distressed communities in this country. It showed that the haves have more and the have-nots have less. It is time we do something about that in this country. It is time we fix the fact there are counties in our country that are suffering. There are communities in our country that haven't seen a new net job for nearly two decades. We can do better than that.

It has been 30 years since Congress last passed major tax reform. It was 1986. I was 12 years old. For those who are wondering what the No. 1 movie was the last time we passed tax reform, it was ``Top Gun.'' The one thing I wanted that same year, the last time we did tax reform, was an Atari 7800. That is what I wanted the last time this body passed tax reform.

Fast forward to today, 30 years later. The last time we did tax reform was 30 years ago. We now live in a world of Wi-Fi, self-driving cars, and Smartphones, but we still have an Atari-era tax code. It is clunky. It is outdated. It is bloated to more pages than any of us would care to read. I wish I had come up with this, but I didn't. I will repeat it: The Tax Code is longer than the Bible, and unlike the Bible, there is no good news in it. It feeds the suspicion that you can game the Tax Code if you are wealthy. If you are average, you will be stuck with the bill.

We can do better. That is the opportunity we have now. We must seize it in a way that helps hard-working American families and businesses to create jobs on Main Street, to change this unfair system that we have.

When I go across the State of Colorado, throughout the four corners of our great State, there are people I meet who have been very successful. If you go to Denver, CO, right now, you will think the new State bird is the construction crane. Dozens of construction cranes are on the horizon, showing the success we have had in that State. If you go to Southeastern Colorado, Western Colorado, Northeastern Colorado, there are pockets of poverty that remain as strong as ever because we haven't been able to find the tools necessary to grow the economy the way we should. That is what this debate allows us to do--to grow this economy, to get this Nation firing on all cylinders again. It is the opportunity we have. We should seize it right now, passing this budget leading to tax reform, to make sure that we can grow American opportunity and innovation because too many people haven't had a meaningful pay increase for far too long. They know they spend too much time working through a tangled mess of rules just to file their taxes that are too high to begin with.

As a country, we spend 6 billion hours and $263 billion each year just to jump through all the hoops and tangles and check the boxes of our Atari-era Tax Code. That is $263 billion we are spending on a 1986- era tax code, just to check the boxes, to fill the forms, to pay the accountants, and to find the lawyers. That is the entire GDP of the nation of New Zealand. That $263 billion is more than the GDP of New Zealand. We spend as much money preparing and filing our taxes in this country as the entire economic output of the nation of New Zealand.

American people need relief. It starts by reducing the number of brackets, simplifying the Tax Code, and reducing our rates. For many American families, this will leave them with more money in their pockets at the end of the day. It also would cut that 6 billion hours that are spent working, trying to file taxes, and leave families with more time to do things that matter to them--not trying to fill out a tax form, but letting them be with their family, be at work, and invest the way they want to with their time and their money. It is just a start.

The end of the unfair death tax will bring relief to regular Americans. Let's start with the death tax. I have heard people criticize the death tax. It is unfair and at times cruel. That should be reason enough for this Congress to repeal it. We have a tax that causes families to have to confront breaking up businesses that have been in the family for generations or selling off the family farm just to keep what they have built and what they have already paid taxes on because somebody died. The government seems to think death is a taxable event.

When I visit with Colorado's farmers and ranchers, one of their biggest concerns--in fact, I met with a group of farmers this past week in Colorado who said that the repeal of the estate tax is more important to them than passing a new farm bill because it is affecting their way of life. These aren't billionaires whom we hear so many complaints about on the Senate floor and in the political op-eds and by the pundits on TV. These are families and ranchers whose families have been working for generations. They have dirt under their fingernails. These are people who have sacrificed for generations to build up land and capital, not liquid assets. That apparently makes them into billionaires, and it is bad enough that they ought to be penalized when they die.

If you are fortunate enough to have some incredible land in Colorado underneath your farm or ranch--maybe a homestead around Vail or Aspen. Are you going to be forced to break up that estate, forced to sell that land, that 36-acre parcel, so you can pay the estate tax when it was open space and we are able to conserve that open space and enjoy that great beauty? Washington, DC, is driving local development decisions, all because of the estate tax. It is suffocating our way of life in rural America, and it must end.

Reforming business taxes will bring tax relief to American families, hard-working families. The corporate tax rate is the highest in the world, and employees are paying the price for uncompetitive corporate tax rates. We

have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. President Obama said that in his 2011 State of the Union Speech.

If you just look at what we can do by decreasing tax burdens on American businesses, we can actually increase the average American household income by between $4,000 and $9,000 a year. This is an average increase to American households across the country. This isn't to the millionaires or billionaires. This is to hard-working American families who are just trying to get ahead in life. So this puts $4,000, at a minimum, in their pockets as a result of lower tax rates. That is not just a one-time increase either. We are not talking about a one- time hit. It is not just for the top earners. The Tax Foundation says that workers across the income distribution will feel the effects year after year.

Go home and ask your constituents whether they would like to have more money in their own pockets or whether they would like to have that in the hands of Washington or Wall Street. Do you know what? I am pretty sure they are going to say: I can spend it better than any bureaucrat or Member of Congress ever could. If I keep it, I will make smart choices for my family. That is what we have to focus on.

The Council of Economic Advisers put out a report explaining how reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent would result in the average American household income going up by $4,000 to $9,000. It is worth walking through what they said. Before 1990, when corporate profits went up by 1 percent, worker wages actually went up by more than 1 percent. Before 1990, profits went up by 1 percent and workers' wages went up by more than 1 percent. Since 1990, that relationship between corporate profits and workers has changed. Over the last 8 years, from 2008 to 2016, a 1-percent increase in corporate profits increased workers' wages only by 0.3 percent, a 0.7-percent decrease. Part of the reason for that is our uncompetitive corporate tax rates.

We will go to our numbers to illustrate what has happened. During the same time, from 1990 until this decade, foreign countries, foreign nations figured out that lowering the corporate tax rate leads to more money in their workers' pockets. While our tax rate has stayed stubbornly high, the high tax rates in other countries have plummeted. The United States has decided that we are going to keep the highest tax rates while other economically developed countries are dropping theirs, resulting in higher wages for their workers. Today, U.S. corporate tax rates are far higher than those of any other country I have talked about today.

Look at this. If you look at where the United States is right now, we are right here, top of the chart, 35 percent. That is the U.S. Federal tax rate, the 2017 average statutory corporate tax rate. Look at OECD countries: 10 percent lower than our statutory rate. Asia is at 20 percent, which is 15 percent lower than our statutory rate. Europe is at 18 percent, and some countries in Europe are going lower because they have realized that when they lower their taxes, they have done a better job of attracting businesses, growing their economy, and creating more work.

It would be tempting for some to assume that taxing corporations skims some of the cream off the top. You will hear plenty of rhetoric about lowering corporate tax rates being a giveaway. Here is the sad truth. I hope the people take the time to learn this lesson. It is the employees that bear the burden of corporate taxes. Studies show that workers pay between 45 percent and 75 percent of corporate taxes in the form of lower wages. How do you fix that? Lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent will alleviate that burden and result in higher income to that average American family, allowing them to keep as much as $9,000--a kind of wage increase of $9,000, an effective increase of $9,000, as much as that each and every year. It is an average increase, according to the Council of Economic Advisers. Once those effects are fully felt, those effects are going to continue year after year across all income distributions.

We are going to another chart here. The family will be able to spend that $4,000 to $9,000 the way they want to. It could be the difference between having a rainy day fund and living paycheck to paycheck. It could be the downpayment on a new home or a route to a better education or a way they can do what they want to with their free time, if they have some or are able to get some because of innovations we are able to create and the jobs we are able to make better and wages people are able to see increased. It is about them putting more money into their families instead of their government.

None of that is going to happen, though, with this current Atari Tax Code. None of that is going to happen unless we can give families and businesses the relief they need. That is what we have the opportunity to do here today.

This week, when we approve the budget, we set the stage for the budget reform, the budget bill, to move forward on tax reform and tax relief, allowing the American people to keep more money in their own pockets. We can provide meaningful relief with a simpler code, less hassle, less squandering of money to avoid the unfair death tax, and more businesses hiring more workers and paying higher wages. That is why this budget is so important. That is why I hope it is approved this week and we set the stage for a brighter future in the coming months and years, as we fight for every chance for the American people to keep the dollars they work so hard to get.

Thank you.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up the following amendments and that the Senate vote in relation to the amendments following disposition of the Sanders amendment No. 1119, Nelson No. 1150, Heller No. 1146, Sanders No. 1120, and Collins No. 1151; further, that there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form, prior to all votes in the series at 3 p.m., with an exception of 10 minutes prior to the vote in relation to the Heller amendment, and that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the votes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks on October 19, it be in order to call up the following amendments; that the time until 11:45 a.m. be for debate on the amendments, equally divided between the managers or their designees; that at 11:45 a.m., the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes: Wyden No. 1302, Capito No. 1393, and Cantwell No. 1141; further, that following the disposition of the Cantwell amendment, Senator Warner's amendment No. 1138 be called up and the time until 2 p.m. be equally divided between the managers or their designees; and that at 2 p.m., the Senate vote in relation to the Warner amendment, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.

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