Floor Statements

Mr. President, this amendment would set up a deficit- neutral reserve fund relating to making the American tax system simpler and fairer for all Americans.

Not only do we need to do tax reform, but we need to do it urgently. It has been more than 30 years since we have reformed the Tax Code in any significant way. We have more preferences and loopholes and deductions out there than we know what to do with. In fact, if we total all of them together, there are more expenditures in the Tax Code, or money avoiding coming to Washington--tax avoidance--than we spend on our entire discretionary budget. It is about $1.26 trillion annually.

So we have to have a code where we lower the rates and broaden the base. Broadening the base means going after some of these popular loopholes and deductions and preferences that make the Tax Code a lot bigger and scarier and more complicated than it should be.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the much needed topic of tax reform. The high rates and complicated nature of the current Tax Code are burdening individual taxpayers and making businesses less competitive in the global market. That simply has to change. It has been more than 30 years since we have passed major tax reform, and we are well past time.

Unfortunately, I recently learned of a serious threat to reforming the Tax Code called alpacas. Now, what do these cute, mild-mannered pets have to do with Federal tax policy? Earlier this year, I issued an oversight report entitled ``Tax Rackets: Outlandish Loopholes to Lower Tax Liabilities.'' That report demonstrated how clever accounting allows nearly anything imaginable to become a writeoff, including alpacas.

To illustrate the point, the report outlined how local and Federal tax bills can be sheared by claiming exotic pets--these exotic pets--as livestock and turning backyards into barnyards. That is when the fur really started to fly.

Alpaca owners associations that once brazenly touted this tax fleece as a key selling point for the animals now feigned outrage at the suggestion. The association tried to pull the wool over the eyes of taxpayers by retaining a professional PR consultant. They launched a media campaign, inundating my office and others with phone calls, social media messages, and letters with photos of alpacas.

Through slick reporting and aggressive lobbying, tax-subsidized alpaca ownership was somehow presented as a bulwark of small business and a flourishing middle class. If this mere mention of a tax break costing $10 million annually and enjoyed by relatively few taxpayers elicited such an outmeasured and aggressive response, imagine the backlash we will face when we are attempting to actually eliminate tax preferences benefiting powerful corporations and special interests to the tune of billions of dollars.

There are over 200 loopholes buried throughout the Tax Code that collectively cost $123 trillion annually. Again, there are over 200 loopholes buried throughout the Tax Code that collectively cost $1.23 trillion annually. This exceeds the total amount spent annually by the Federal Government for all discretionary programs, which includes defense, education, transportation, foreign aid, and protecting the environment.

These exemptions increase the bill for the average taxpayer. They also make the Tax Code so complicated that most individuals have to hire a tax professional or buy software to help complete their tax returns.

At more than 74,000 pages in length, no one--not even those in Washington who write the laws or enforce them--truly understands Federal tax law. Special interests are taking advantage of this confusion by hiring armies of accountants and Washington lobbyists to dodge taxes and cash in on the complexity of the code. For example, developers are claiming--these are a lot of homebuilders are claiming $8 billion in tax credits every year supposedly to construct low-income housing, but with fewer homes being built and no basic accountability requirements, it is nearly impossible to track how this money is being spent.

The Government Accountability Office, the GAO, which is investigating, said the ``IRS and no one else in the federal government really has an idea of what is going on.''

The same is true with hundreds of other tax loopholes. A luxury yacht can qualify as a second home and can be eligible for a mortgage interest deduction. Alaskan ship captains can expense costs for whaling as charitable contributions, even though no money goes to charity and whaling is typically illegal otherwise. High rollers can itemize the cost of gambling trips, including entertainment. Even the cost of losing lottery tickets can be deducted, a kind of scratch-off writeoff.

Only the IRS knows who is taking advantage of these loopholes, and the agency often cannot verify whether those claiming the tax giveaways are eligible. In order to achieve meaningful tax reform that makes the code simpler and fairer, we have to be able to first evaluate who is benefiting from these loopholes, for what purpose, and for what price.

That is why I am introducing the Tax Expenditures Accountability Act, which will publicly disclose the names of the corporate and special interests receiving tax credits and the costs of these tax credits. This bill requires the Department of Treasury to disclose the special interest receiving tax credits just as all other Federal expenditures are currently disclosed on the public website USAspending.gov. Sunlight is obviously the best disinfectant, and I look forward to exposing many of these loopholes, eliminating them, and returning the savings to individual taxpayers in the form of lower taxes.

As the alpaca lobby demonstrated, riding herd on tax breaks will cause every special interest benefiting from the code's complexity and unfairness to cry foul. Washington's powerful special interests will mobilize and threaten to derail tax reform. Many would rather protect these loopholes than allow taxpayers to keep more of their own paycheck.

Coming up short on reform is not an option. We have to do it this year. Individuals and businesses are suffering under a broken, antiquated tax code that is in dire need of fixing. We can't be deterred in efforts to achieve real reform that reduces the tax bill for everyone.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the much needed topic of tax reform. The high rates and complicated nature of the current Tax Code are burdening individual taxpayers and making businesses less competitive in the global market. That simply has to change. It has been more than 30 years since we have passed major tax reform, and we are well past time.

Unfortunately, I recently learned of a serious threat to reforming the Tax Code called alpacas. Now, what do these cute, mild-mannered pets have to do with Federal tax policy? Earlier this year, I issued an oversight report entitled ``Tax Rackets: Outlandish Loopholes to Lower Tax Liabilities.'' That report demonstrated how clever accounting allows nearly anything imaginable to become a writeoff, including alpacas.

To illustrate the point, the report outlined how local and Federal tax bills can be sheared by claiming exotic pets--these exotic pets--as livestock and turning backyards into barnyards. That is when the fur really started to fly.

Alpaca owners associations that once brazenly touted this tax fleece as a key selling point for the animals now feigned outrage at the suggestion. The association tried to pull the wool over the eyes of taxpayers by retaining a professional PR consultant. They launched a media campaign, inundating my office and others with phone calls, social media messages, and letters with photos of alpacas.

Through slick reporting and aggressive lobbying, tax-subsidized alpaca ownership was somehow presented as a bulwark of small business and a flourishing middle class. If this mere mention of a tax break costing $10 million annually and enjoyed by relatively few taxpayers elicited such an outmeasured and aggressive response, imagine the backlash we will face when we are attempting to actually eliminate tax preferences benefiting powerful corporations and special interests to the tune of billions of dollars.

There are over 200 loopholes buried throughout the Tax Code that collectively cost $123 trillion annually. Again, there are over 200 loopholes buried throughout the Tax Code that collectively cost $1.23 trillion annually. This exceeds the total amount spent annually by the Federal Government for all discretionary programs, which includes defense, education, transportation, foreign aid, and protecting the environment.

These exemptions increase the bill for the average taxpayer. They also make the Tax Code so complicated that most individuals have to hire a tax professional or buy software to help complete their tax returns.

At more than 74,000 pages in length, no one--not even those in Washington who write the laws or enforce them--truly understands Federal tax law. Special interests are taking advantage of this confusion by hiring armies of accountants and Washington lobbyists to dodge taxes and cash in on the complexity of the code. For example, developers are claiming--these are a lot of homebuilders are claiming $8 billion in tax credits every year supposedly to construct low-income housing, but with fewer homes being built and no basic accountability requirements, it is nearly impossible to track how this money is being spent.

The Government Accountability Office, the GAO, which is investigating, said the ``IRS and no one else in the federal government really has an idea of what is going on.''

The same is true with hundreds of other tax loopholes. A luxury yacht can qualify as a second home and can be eligible for a mortgage interest deduction. Alaskan ship captains can expense costs for whaling as charitable contributions, even though no money goes to charity and whaling is typically illegal otherwise. High rollers can itemize the cost of gambling trips, including entertainment. Even the cost of losing lottery tickets can be deducted, a kind of scratch-off writeoff.

Only the IRS knows who is taking advantage of these loopholes, and the agency often cannot verify whether those claiming the tax giveaways are eligible. In order to achieve meaningful tax reform that makes the code simpler and fairer, we have to be able to first evaluate who is benefiting from these loopholes, for what purpose, and for what price.

That is why I am introducing the Tax Expenditures Accountability Act, which will publicly disclose the names of the corporate and special interests receiving tax credits and the costs of these tax credits. This bill requires the Department of Treasury to disclose the special interest receiving tax credits just as all other Federal expenditures are currently disclosed on the public website USAspending.gov. Sunlight is obviously the best disinfectant, and I look forward to exposing many of these loopholes, eliminating them, and returning the savings to individual taxpayers in the form of lower taxes.

As the alpaca lobby demonstrated, riding herd on tax breaks will cause every special interest benefiting from the code's complexity and unfairness to cry foul. Washington's powerful special interests will mobilize and threaten to derail tax reform. Many would rather protect these loopholes than allow taxpayers to keep more of their own paycheck.

Coming up short on reform is not an option. We have to do it this year. Individuals and businesses are suffering under a broken, antiquated tax code that is in dire need of fixing. We can't be deterred in efforts to achieve real reform that reduces the tax bill for everyone.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Border Security and Deferred Action Recipient Relief Act, which I am introducing.

This bill offers solutions to the serious problems facing us with regard to border security, while at the same time addressing the needs for a legislative solution for those issues faced by the children who were brought here through no fault of their own.

With respect to the border, this bill provides $1.6 billion in funding for border security measures that the President requested and the House has already approved in a bipartisan vote. As an Arizonan, I am more than familiar with the steps we need to take to increase border security. We have a better situation on the border than we have had in a while, but there are still measures that need to be taken.

In addition to the appropriate barriers that will aid in preventing illegal crossings, we need access roads that actually get to the border. If there is one issue I hear from property owners, ranchers, Border Patrol agents, and others near the border, it is that they need better access. We have had an issue with regard to roads that are used by the Border Control that are paid for by the county. It is a situation that needs to be resolved, and it will benefit all of us who travel near the border. This bill addresses that. The road issue was also raised by the GAO. I requested a study on behalf of my constituents,

along with my colleagues, to see what we could do with the roads and access situation. GAO came back with recommendations, and this would implement some of the recommendations.

The bill also aids law enforcement by ensuring the swift deportation of individuals determined to be members of violent gangs and drug cartels.

I would also like to thank Congresswoman Barbara Comstock for her leadership on this issue by sponsoring the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act, which passed the House.

With respect to the children brought here through no fault of their own, this bill takes a measure that has already earned bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, the Recognizing America's Children Act, which provides a solution for the DACA kids. These young immigrants were brought here as children and simply know no other country. For all intents and purposes, these young people consider themselves Americans. If we can protect these DACA recipients and provide solutions to better secure our borders at the same time, that is a win-win.

The President and Congress both want to improve border security. We both want to respond to the threat of dangerous gangs and drug cartels. We both want to arrive at a legislative solution for the rescission of the DACA Program that benefits those who want to contribute to their communities and to the American dream. This bill is the best way to thread the needle and deliver what the President has asked for, what the Congress wants, and what my constituents in Arizona deserve. These issues are far too important for us to delay.

To be clear, I will work with anyone to support any number of proposals that accomplish these goals, but I believe that the straightforward approach of the Border Security and Deferred Action Recipient Relief Act, which I am introducing today, is the best chance we have to put this bill on the President's desk.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Border Security and Deferred Action Recipient Relief Act, which I am introducing.

This bill offers solutions to the serious problems facing us with regard to border security, while at the same time addressing the needs for a legislative solution for those issues faced by the children who were brought here through no fault of their own.

With respect to the border, this bill provides $1.6 billion in funding for border security measures that the President requested and the House has already approved in a bipartisan vote. As an Arizonan, I am more than familiar with the steps we need to take to increase border security. We have a better situation on the border than we have had in a while, but there are still measures that need to be taken.

In addition to the appropriate barriers that will aid in preventing illegal crossings, we need access roads that actually get to the border. If there is one issue I hear from property owners, ranchers, Border Patrol agents, and others near the border, it is that they need better access. We have had an issue with regard to roads that are used by the Border Control that are paid for by the county. It is a situation that needs to be resolved, and it will benefit all of us who travel near the border. This bill addresses that. The road issue was also raised by the GAO. I requested a study on behalf of my constituents,

along with my colleagues, to see what we could do with the roads and access situation. GAO came back with recommendations, and this would implement some of the recommendations.

The bill also aids law enforcement by ensuring the swift deportation of individuals determined to be members of violent gangs and drug cartels.

I would also like to thank Congresswoman Barbara Comstock for her leadership on this issue by sponsoring the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act, which passed the House.

With respect to the children brought here through no fault of their own, this bill takes a measure that has already earned bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, the Recognizing America's Children Act, which provides a solution for the DACA kids. These young immigrants were brought here as children and simply know no other country. For all intents and purposes, these young people consider themselves Americans. If we can protect these DACA recipients and provide solutions to better secure our borders at the same time, that is a win-win.

The President and Congress both want to improve border security. We both want to respond to the threat of dangerous gangs and drug cartels. We both want to arrive at a legislative solution for the rescission of the DACA Program that benefits those who want to contribute to their communities and to the American dream. This bill is the best way to thread the needle and deliver what the President has asked for, what the Congress wants, and what my constituents in Arizona deserve. These issues are far too important for us to delay.

To be clear, I will work with anyone to support any number of proposals that accomplish these goals, but I believe that the straightforward approach of the Border Security and Deferred Action Recipient Relief Act, which I am introducing today, is the best chance we have to put this bill on the President's desk.

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

Mr. President, last week I filed an amicus brief calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear and then overturn the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Sanchez-Gomez. I am proud to have been supported in this effort by all 15 sheriffs in my home State of Arizona, as well as the Western States Sheriffs Association and the National Sheriffs' Association.

I should mention that this is not a partisan issue we are talking about. We have sheriffs representing both parties in Arizona. Every sheriff in Arizona has supported this amicus--all 15.

This decision by the Ninth Circuit is just another example of a ruling that is well outside of the judicial mainstream. Unfortunately, in this case, their ruling dramatically undercuts effective border enforcement, and it creates a dangerous situation for law enforcement and the public. In this case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that it violates the rights of prisoners for marshals and other sheriffs or other courtroom personnel to employ commonplace, thoughtfully crafted courtroom safety policies in which prisoners appear before a judge, fitted with appropriate restraints. This is a significant change from common practice, and it conflicts with two other courts of appeals.

More troubling, the decision has prompted public safety concerns for Arizona and throughout the West. First, law enforcement will have no choice but to increase the number of officers needed to maintain the safety of individuals inside courtrooms. This means that more U.S. marshals and sheriffs will be spending their days in courthouses instead of pursuing violent fugitives or preventing street crime. Even with these increased numbers, law enforcement officials have expressed concern over the high threshold they are now forced to attain in order to get permission to fit dangerous prisoners with restraints.

By putting these restraints on law enforcement rather than prisoners, this ruling limits the ability of sheriffs and U.S. marshals to ensure the safety of the judges, jurors, lawyers, prisoners, victims, and members of the public inside these courthouses around the country.

This decision also dramatically undercuts the ability of the Federal courts to process illegal immigration border crossing cases as part of Operation Streamline, the very successful border enforcement program that has worked so well in some parts of Arizona. By establishing a zero tolerance approach to illegal border crossings, Operation Streamline has made a dramatic difference in the number of illegal border crossings in communities like Tucson and Yuma.

This year, the Operation Streamline Program averaged around 45 individuals per hearing. Even with these high caseloads, the program could remain efficient, thanks in part to traditional courtroom safety procedures. They could take 40 prisoners at a time and process them if they were allowed to use the current courtroom practices. These old policies allow law enforcement to bring up to 75 individuals into the courtroom at once, but under the Ninth Circuit's decision to relax courtroom safety protocols, law enforcement officers are now forced to limit groups of prisoners before the court to no more than a handful at a time. This makes it increasingly impractical for judges to hear cases due to the amount of time required for law enforcement to move small numbers of prisoners in and out of the courtroom. There simply aren't the hours in a day.

I take the independence of the courts very seriously. That is why, when every sheriff in my State comes to me and says that there is a court ruling that is endangering their deputies and the public, I am going to urge that the decision be overturned by the proper authority.

This makes a difference in Arizona for another reason as well. We have a lot of older courthouses. Some of them are historic courthouses. These buildings simply aren't built for today's needs in terms of access for prisoners and the public within these courthouses. Sometimes they have to go in the same doorways and in the same hallways. If law enforcement and courtroom security personnel are not allowed to have standards in terms of prisoner restraint, then you endanger

the safety of individuals visiting the courthouse and others. You are simply unable to process the number of cases that we have in Arizona, particularly near the border with regard to immigration cases.

I hope that the High Court, the Supreme Court, will grant cert here and examine this ruling. It really makes a difference in a State like Arizona.

With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss how we allow religious believers to participate in public life.

From the founding of our country, religious believers have played a central role in our government. The Declaration of Independence was signed by a Presbyterian minister, John Witherspoon, and Charles Carroll, the cousin of our first Catholic bishop.

The importance of religious participation was in the air the Founders breathed, and the benefits religious believers of all backgrounds contributed to the common good was understood by the Framers of the Constitution. That is why they made it clear in article VI of the Constitution that no public officers could be subject to a ``religious test.'' This new country wouldn't be a country for Anglicans or for Congregationalists or for Quakers; it would be a country for all Americans and all faiths--all of those who are committed to the Constitution and the common good.

Unfortunately, the religious test clause is no longer just the subject of history lessons. During this Congress, there have been a number of cases where my friends in the minority have seemed to ask nominees about their substantive religious beliefs. I find this particularly troublesome because, as a Mormon, I am a member of a faith that, while it is growing rapidly, still counts fewer adherents than many other religions. It is religious liberty, espoused in constitutional provisions like article VI and the First Amendment, that has allowed my faith, despite a very difficult history, to flourish in the United States, and it is religious liberty that is threatened when we seem to evaluate the fitness of nominees for higher office on religious orthodoxy.

The most recent example of this was the recent Judiciary Committee nomination hearing of Professor Amy Coney Barrett of the Notre Dame Law School. During the hearing, she was asked repeatedly about her Catholic faith and faced what bordered on ridicule when she repeatedly stated that she would perform her judicial duties without interference from the doctrines of the Catholic faith. It was stated by one questioner: ``The dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern.'' What does that statement mean in this context, if not to question Professor Barrett's judicial fitness based on her religious beliefs?

Liberal groups have been relentless in their opposition to Professor Barrett, mischaracterizing her record to paint her as some kind of fringe ideologue waiting to take orders from the Pope or others in clergy on how to decide cases. Just last week, the New York Times ran a 1500-word story on where Professor Barrett worships. As it turns out, apart from her parish church, Professor Barrett has been part of an ecumenical charismatic community.

I should note that charismatic Christianity is gaining a lot of ground among Latinos in the United States and throughout Latin America. It is a vibrant and very diverse religious tradition.

According to the Times, Professor Barrett should have disclosed her participation in this charismatic community to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Professor Barrett's former professor and colleague, Professor Cathy Kaveny of Boston College, went so far as to ask: ``[Nominees] have to disclose everything from the Elks Lodge to the alumni associations we belong to. Why didn't she disclose this?'' Well, I am no law professor, but I can tell you why: because in the United States of America, it doesn't matter where you worship when you are being considered for Federal office, and that is as it should be.

The Judiciary Committee does not require disclosure of religious affiliation, and I trust my colleagues would join me in strenuously objecting if it did.

It is ironic that a Notre Dame professor is a target of this kind of animus. Notre Dame, of course, has long been at the forefront of fighting prejudice in this country.

Early in its years, Notre Dame helped rid America of the scourge of slavery. Many artists have rendered Notre Dame professor, Father William Corby, giving the Irish Brigade general absolution during the Battle of Gettysburg.

The school then faced down the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s. At a time when a large number of White men in Indiana were members of the Klan, Notre Dame students made it clear that the Klan's brand of nativist, anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic hate was not welcomed in South Bend.

Four decades later, Notre Dame's president, Father Ted Hesburgh, received a call about a rally at Soldier Field being organized by Dr. Martin Luther King. Hesburgh was told that Mayor Daley and Cardinal Cody had declined invitations to appear at the civil rights rally, and the organizers wondered if he would be willing to appear. In response, Hesburgh drove to Chicago, locked hands with Dr. King, and sang ``We Shall Overcome.''

Whether it is slavery, nativism, or Jim Crow, Notre Dame has stood up to it and has triumphed. In that same tradition, I am confident that Professor Barrett is up to that task. What is remarkable is that I need to say this in 2017.

It bears repeating that a Roman Catholic can be a faithful steward of the law. So can an Episcopalian. So can a Mormon. So can a Muslim. Of course, so can an atheist.

We in the Senate give the President advice and consent on judicial nominations. We therefore should examine their jurisprudential views and their qualifications. We must not examine their relationships with the Almighty.

I sincerely hope this body will step back from this dangerous ledge and evaluate Professor Barrett based on her impeccable qualifications, not where she attends church.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the Democrats talked this morning about the Affordable Care Act and what the reform efforts are trying to do and what they are not trying to do. I want to associate myself with the comments made by my colleague, the Senator from Nebraska, earlier today.

A lot of talk has been thrown around about how the new effort would cut Medicaid spending. As my colleague from Nebraska mentioned, here in Washington a cut is not a cut anywhere else. But if you deal with the rate of growth, if you raise spending only by the Consumer Price Index rather than the medical Consumer Price Index--5

percent rather than 6 percent, for example--then you are somehow cutting the program.

We know that the program as it currently stands is unsustainable. I think we all recognize that. So any efforts to deal with and to allow Governors and others at the local level to have more of a say on how these funds are spent and to gain efficiencies that way are frowned upon. It is said that we simply can't do that because it would be cutting Medicaid. That simply isn't the case.

Arizona, for example, has a version of Medicaid called AHCCCS. It is done far more efficiently than some of the other States do it. That is because at the local level they have been able to do what local governments do best. The government that is closer to the people generally spends money more wisely and finds efficiencies that the Federal Government simply can't find.

Let me mention that on the exchange, the Affordable Care Act dealt with a couple of different things. It is a so-called exchange where people who can't get insurance otherwise or don't get it through their employers will buy it on either a Federal exchange or a State exchange. Then you have the Medicaid side. Let me speak for a minute on the exchange side.

Arizona has been ground zero for the failure of the ObamaCare exchange. We have 15 counties in Arizona. In all 15 counties, if you are a family of four and you are buying on the exchange, you are paying more on average for your healthcare premiums than you are for your mortgage. Think about that for a minute. You are paying more for your healthcare premiums than you are for your mortgage in every county in Arizona. In some counties in Arizona you are paying double. In every county it is more, in some counties significantly more, and in a couple of counties you are paying double for your healthcare premiums--much more than what you are paying for your mortgage.

I spoke yesterday with an elected official from Arizona from one of the rural counties. He told me that his healthcare premium, which he simply can't afford anymore for his family of four children, would have been $2,800 a month. That is what it has gone up to. It has doubled virtually every year. In some counties in Arizona, we saw increases of 116 percent. He owned insurance prior to ObamaCare, was paying a reasonable amount for a premium, and had copays and deductibles that were reasonable as well. But when the Affordable Care Act came in, the promise that you could keep your doctor or keep your plan simply wasn't the case. His premiums have gone up, up, and up until now; he has a premium of $2,800 monthly for his family of four children.

Keep in mind, as well, that there are the deductibles on top of that. Were he to use that insurance, by the time he satisfies the family deductible, which is about $12,000, he has paid--or he will pay if he has any medical issues--between premiums and deductibles, more than $40,000 before the first insurance dollar kicks in.

So when we hear from the other side of the aisle that there is no problem with ObamaCare, that the only thing we have to worry about is, for some people who have gained insurance, to make sure they keep that--I agree we have to make sure those with preexisting conditions have access to affordable care. But when you have people on the exchange who simply can't find affordable care and if they do have a policy they can't afford to use it because deductibles and copays are so high, we have a problem.

The latest figures tell us that 155,000 Arizonans woke up this morning without any insurance. Most of them had insurance prior to the Affordable Care Act, but then insurance was priced out of their reach. So 155,000 people are paying a fine to the Federal Government because of their inability to find affordable insurance. They pay that fine, and they still have no insurance. Tell me that is not something we have to fix. We have to fix that. That is what we are responding to here.

This notion that it is all hunky-dory--keep with the plan--belies the fact that 155,000 Arizonans woke up this morning and said: We are paying a fine to the Federal Government because we can't find affordable care, and still we have no care, and we are somehow supposed to be OK with that. Somehow we are supposed to wait until we can find a solution for it all before we address that specific situation.

I submit that we have to fix this. People in Arizona and elsewhere are hurting. Let's stop with the rhetoric that this is somehow a cut and people will be left on the streets. We heard that back in 1996 with welfare reform. It was said that the Governors or others at the local level couldn't participate, couldn't be in charge of this program because people would be dying on the streets. Guess what. Within a couple of years, the welfare rolls had been cut in half. We are doing better, and the Federal Government's obligation in that regard has been sustainable, unlike the current situation we have with the so-called Affordable Care Act.

I hope we can stop the outrageous rhetoric on this and actually fix the problem. Let's fix the problem for Arizonans who are hurting right now.

With that, I yield back.

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 armed services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 26, 2017, at 10 a.m., in open session to consider the nomination of:

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 Tuesday, September 26, 2017, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.''

committee on energy and natural resources

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a hearing on Tuesday, September 26, 2017, at 10 a.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

committee on foreign relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 10:30 a.m., to hold a business meeting.

committee on foreign relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 10:45 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Managing Security Assistance to Support Foreign Policy.''

committee on the judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 26, 2017 at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Special Counsels and the Separation of Powers.''

committee on intelligence

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during

the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, September 26, 2017 from 2 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold a Closed Member Roundtable.

committee on consumer protection, product safety, insurance, and data

security

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 26, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold Subcommittee Hearing on ``FTC Stakeholder Perspectives: Reform Proposals to Improve Fairness, Innovation and Consumer Welfare.''

Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Virginia for his leadership on this issue. He has been at it a long time. The two of us have been at it for quite a while. I think this is the year. This is the time. We are well past time for an AUMF.

I wish to thank the Senator from Kentucky for focusing the Senate's attention on the 16-year-old authorization for use of military force. As a freshman Member of the House of Representatives, I voted in favor of the 2001 authorization on September 14, 2001--almost 16 years ago to the day--September 14, 2001. I can attest that when I voted for that law, I had no idea it would still be in effect 16 years later.

Since its passage, more than 300 Members of the House who took that vote that day, on September 14, 2001--more than 300 Members of the House are no longer in office. Of the Senators who voted, only 23 remain in the Senate today--23 out of 100. That comes out to about 70 percent of the Congress who has not voted to authorize force against terrorist groups abroad.

It is long past time for Congress to calibrate the legal underpinning of the war against terrorism to today's realities. ISIS, for example, did not exist when the 2001 law was approved. We have learned a number of things since we voted to go to war with the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, and I think it is time to incorporate those lessons into a new

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