Floor Statements

Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that Senator King now be recognized to offer a motion to commit, which is at the desk; that the time until 4 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form for debate on the motion; that at 4 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 or his designee be recognized.

Mr. President, this is a historic day, as the Senate begins consideration of tax reform that will help boost America's economy, create more jobs, and leave more money in people's paychecks.

The House and Senate passage last month of the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution marked an important first step toward tax relief for American families and job creators that will jump-start economic growth. The resolution gave the Senate Finance Committee the headroom to come up with comprehensive tax reform, and it instructed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to save $1 billion. Finance Committee Chairman Hatch and Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairwoman Murkowski both deserve praise for developing legislative recommendations that fit with the budget resolution's reconciliation instructions, and I thank them for their efforts.

Yesterday, the Senate Budget Committee took the next step by combining the legislative recommendations from the Finance and the Energy and Natural Resources Committees and reporting the combined bill to the full Senate for consideration. This put our Nation one step closer to real tax reform while advancing American energy security.

It is past time for us to act. A lot of things have changed since the last major tax reform in 1986, and unfortunately our Tax Code hasn't kept pace with those changes. It is an outdated mess that is hurting American workers and holding back our economy. That is why we need tax reform that will make our system simpler and fairer and allow people to keep more of what they earn. The bill before us will do that. It will help grow the economy, create jobs, and ensure that hard-working Americans aren't missing available tax relief.

This bill also will provide relief to small, family-owned businesses. We want to make sure that small businesses, which currently employ the majority of the private sector in Wyoming and are the backbone of our communities all over the country, have the opportunity to grow and provide more jobs.

If you care about jobs, if you care about American companies staying here and being able to compete globally, then you should also care about reforming our business tax system. America has the fourth highest corporate rate in the world. We need to encourage companies to bring back their overseas money to increase the number of jobs here in the United States. Lowering our uncommonly high and uncompetitive business tax rate would be one of the quickest ways to solve the problem. It is time we make America a more inviting place to invest, to do business, and to create jobs.

We heard a lot of rhetoric yesterday in our committee meeting where we reported this bill, and I expect we will be hearing a lot more of the same arguments over the next couple of days. So I want to address some of the claims made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle yesterday.

Several Members complained that there have been zero hearings on this reconciliation legislation and that this has been a rushed process. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The entire 2018 budget reconciliation process has been open, transparent, and subject to regular order, starting with the passage of the Senate budget resolution. The Senate Budget Committee marked up the budget over 2 days and accepted amendments from both sides of the aisle to make the resolution stronger. In fact, for the first time ever, the minority was given a copy of the chairman's bill 5 days prior to the start of the markup. According to many of my colleagues, it was one of the most transparent budget resolution markups in history.

The budget resolution, complete with the reconciliation instructions being used this week, was then debated on the floor in an open process that allowed every Senator the opportunity to offer and vote on amendments to improve the resolution before its final passage. That set in motion the instructed committees' process for producing recommendations.

Over the last 6 years, the Senate Finance Committee has held 70 hearings on how the Tax Code can be improved and streamlined to work better for all Americans.

Earlier this month, the Senate Finance Committee held a 4-day markup before finally approving tax reform legislation designed to modernize our Tax Code. The markup lasted 23 hours and 34 minutes over the course of those 4 days. Of the more than 350 amendments filed, 69 were asked to be considered in committee. An additional 35 amendments, offered by both Democrats and Republicans, were included in the final bill reported out of committee.

On November 2, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing to receive testimony on the potential for oil and gas exploration and development in the so-called 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. On November 15, after adopting a bipartisan amendment, the committee approved, with bipartisan support, legislation authorizing responsible development in the 1002 area and meeting the $1 billion reconciliation deficit reduction target.

Let me explain what we are talking about. ANWR is 19.3 million acres. It is about the size of South Carolina. The 1002 area is 1.57 million acres--about the size of Delaware. The area within 1002 that we are talking about for development is just 2,000 acres, which is smaller than the Fargo, ND, airport.

When the Budget Committee met yesterday, consistent with our responsibility under the Congressional Budget Act, we were only allowed to combine the recommendations of the two committees. We reported the combined bill to the full Senate. As provided by law, no amendments were allowed because, under the Budget Act, our committee is prohibited from substantially changing either committee's approved recommendations. Now that this bill is on the floor, however, it will be subject to the amendment process. For reconciliation bills like this, the amount of amendments that can be offered is unlimited.

Several Members yesterday accused us of no longer caring about overspending and the debt. Again, this is completely false. Better tax policy will boost the value of everything we produce, and this will mean more revenue for the Federal Government.

The cost of this bill that you will hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue assumes the bill has little effect on the economy. That assumption is based on the sluggish growth we have had recently. In 2016, annual GDP growth was 1.6 percent, but our historical average growth is 3.2

percent. Under President Trump's efforts and the hope that he has brought to working Americans, our economy has grown at more than 3 percent over the last two quarters. If we only get to 2.4 percent growth in the private sector, this bill will be paid for. If we reach 3.2 percent growth, part of the debt will be paid down with the extra revenue that will be generated.

We have tried stimulus, and it left us with the 1.6 percent. We have tried cutting. In Washington, if you don't give the amount of increase that people are asking for but you give them more money than they had last year, that is considered a cut. So cuts haven't worked here, either. So what is the other option that we have? Growing the economy.

Now, I want to repeat that in 2016 the annual GDP growth was 1.6 percent, but our historical average growth is 3.2 percent. And under President Trump's efforts and the hope he has brought to working Americans, our economy has grown at more than 3 percent over the last two quarters, without this. If we only get to 2.4 percent growth in the private sector, this bill will be paid for. I believe we can reach the 3.2-percent growth, and part of the debt will be paid down from the extra revenue that will be generated.

Some people will say that after tax cuts before, the deficit has gone up. I hope you check and see that the revenue has gone up, but the spending went up bigger. It is like somebody winning the lottery and spending their winnings twice.

This reconciliation bill will make concrete reforms to the broken U.S. Tax Code and put the American economy back on a growth track. This tax plan is an investment in hard-working Americans, one that will produce more jobs and result in higher wages and a stronger and more competitive American economy.

You are probably going to hear a lot of screaming going on in speeches this week. Please don't confuse volume with veracity or truth.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to help pass this bill. It will not only benefit hard-working Americans, but it will make our economy and our country stronger.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, section 3003 of H. Con. Res. 71, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018, allows the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates and levels in the budget resolution for legislation considered under the resolution's reconciliation instructions.

I find that S. Amdt. 1618 fulfills the conditions found in section 3003 of H. Con. Res. 71. Accordingly, I am revising the allocations to the Committee on Finance, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and other enforceable budgetary levels to account for the budgetary effects of the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustment, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for six additional full floor access passes to be equally divided between the majority and the minority during the consideration of H.R. 1 for the following staffers: for the majority, Eric Euland, Rebecca Cole, and Paul Vinovich; for the minority, Mike Jones, Jill Harrelson, and Josh Smith; finally, that Natalie Rico, a fellow in Senator Sanders' office, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of H.R. 1.

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Unker's Therapeutic Products for its 35th year in business. This is an impressive milestone for their organization.

Unker's Therapeutic Products' story of starting out with Patrick Henry's hard work in his garage to being a staple in Wyoming and even sponsoring racecars is the embodiment of the American dream. I am pleased to hear of the company's success and of the plans to continue this business for years to come. Unker's Therapeutic Products provides both good jobs and much-needed services to the people of our towns and communities. It is greatly appreciated. Good businesses make for strongly knit communities, and that helps us all.

President and CEO Patricia Pendelton and all the folks at Unker's Therapeutic Products can be very proud they have served Weston County and the State of Wyoming for so long. Their hard work and determined effort have played a part in its current and continued success.

I extend my best wishes and congratulations to Patricia and to everyone who is a part of this company.

Thank you.

Mr. President, H. Con. Res. 71, the fiscal year 2018 congressional budget resolution, included an instruction to the chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget to file enforceable levels in the Senate in the event the budget was agreed to without the need to appoint a committee of conference on the measure. On Thursday, October 19, 2017, the Senate passed the budget by a vote of 51-48. On Thursday, October 26, 2017, the House of Representatives passed the budget without any changes on a vote of 216-212. As such, today I wish to submit the required filing found in the resolution.

Specifically, section 4113 of the fiscal year 2018 congressional budget resolution requires the chairman to file: No. 1, an allocation for fiscal year 2018 for the Committee on Appropriations; No. 2, an allocation for all committees other than the Committee on Appropriations for the fiscal year 2018, fiscal year 2018 to 2022, and fiscal year 2018 to 2027 periods; and No. 3, a list of accounts eligible to receive advance appropriations.

The figures included in this filing are consistent with the spending limits set forth in the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the levels included in H. Con. Res. 71, as adjusted to include the budgetary effects of legislation that were enacted after the baseline for the resolution was constructed but before passage of the resolution by the House of Representatives, pursuant to section 4205 of the resolution.

Adjustments for the budgetary effects of the following enacted legislation were included: Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanction Act, H.R. 3364; VA Choice and Quality Employment Act of 2017, S. 114; Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2017, H.R. 3218; FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, H.R. 2430; Granting the consent and approval of Congress for the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia to enter into a compact relating to the establishment of the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission, H.J. Res. 76; Emergency Aid to American Survivors of Hurricanes Irma and Jose Overseas Act, H.R. 3732; Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2017, H.R. 3819; Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2017, H.R. 3823; Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria Education Relief Act of 2017, S. 1866; Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 and Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2017, H.R. 601; and Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirement Act of 2017, H.R. 2266.

For purposes of enforcing the Senate's pay-as-you-go rule, which is now found in section 4106 of this resolution, I am resetting the Senate's scorecard to zero for all fiscal years.

All years in the accompanying tables are fiscal years.

I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Keith Bowar of Gillette, WY, on finishing his fourth term as president of the Wyoming Conference of Building Officials Chapter of the International Code Council. This is a great milestone, an instant replay memory Mr. Bowar will cherish and remember for a long time to come.

I commend Mr. Bowar for all that he has been able to accomplish over the years both in the Wyoming Conference of Building Officials and as a building code professional. For 23 years, he has dedicated himself to furthering public safety, beginning in 1994 as a building inspector for the city of Gillette and advancing to the position of chief building official for Campbell County in 2011.

Mr. Bowar's elevation to president of the Wyoming Conference of Building Officials was a recognition by his peers of his dedication and effectiveness, and he used the position to improve building and fire safety throughout Wyoming. The challenges Mr. Bowar faced and the changes that he helped to bring to the world around him reflect the way he uses his skills and knowledge to make a difference in so many ways.

I send my best wishes to Mr. Bower on completing his tenure as president of the Wyoming Conference of Building Officials and for his service to Wyoming.

Thank you.

Mr. President, while I am disappointed that we didn't continue the tradition of alternating speakers, I am glad that I got to hear both of the previous speakers.

I used to work with the Senators from Colorado to make sure that there were pictures taken annually from the same spots to show the way the trees are dying. There was an infestation that was causing this. The only reason we don't still take those pictures is all the trees are dead. You can't show that it is spreading when they are all dead. They need to be cleaned up, and I am glad there is work being done on forest management.

On healthcare, there is some effort being made between Senator Alexander and Senator Murray to get a bipartisan bill, but what we need to do around here is get some of the appointments finished up so that the President can have the people in place to solve these problems. We are having to spend 30 hours on the cloture of a district judge. I have never heard of that. I have been here 21 years now, and I have never heard of that. We have to get the appointments through. That is one of our prime jobs--to provide advice and consent for the President--and it is not happening on a timely basis.

We have had to do 44 cloture motions on different people for the administration. At this point in President Obama's first term, that had only happened five times. With the previous President, it hadn't happened at all, and the previous one, it had only happened once. Already 44 times this year, it has taken us around 30 hours to get somebody through the process, and we have hundreds waiting to get through the process. That is one of our primary jobs. If we can't get those through the process, it is pretty hard for us to do the legislation we need to do.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, this amendment is corrosive to the budget resolution's privilege. So it falls outside the scope of what is appropriate for inclusion. Adoption of corrosive amendments could be fatal to the resolution's privilege, and loss of privilege could compromise our ability to pass tax reform and enforce the budget spending limits. Further, this amendment is also nongermane. The Congressional Budget Act requires that amendments to a budget resolution be germane, which is a statutory requirement we can't ignore. So I raise a point of order against this amendment under the Budget Act, section 305(b)(2).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number: Flake No. 1178, Baldwin No. 1139, Rubio No. 1205, Heitkamp No. 1228, Portman No. 1422, Donnelly No. 1234, and Kaine No. 1249.

I further ask consent that at 3 p.m., all time on the resolution be yielded back and the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed; that there be no second-degree amendments in order to these seven amendments prior to the votes; finally, that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the managers or their designees prior to each vote and that all votes after the first in this series be 10 minutes in length.

For the information of all Senators, these are the first seven amendments we will consider during vote-arama, and we will work to get an agreement on a final list of amendments during these votes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, which would create an uneven playing field for the upcoming congressional reconciliation. If adopted, this amendment would reinstate a point of order from the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution, which Congress repealed 2 years ago. It was repealed to ensure equal treatment of all reconciliation bills by restoring the level playing field that had existed prior to the adoption of the point of order in 2008. That was used under the Byrd rule.

The Byrd rule specifically does not require such budget neutrality inside the budget window. Why? Because reconciliation was designed to be neutral in its orientation. The Budget Act states that reconciliation instructions must enumerate changes in spending and revenue amounts. It does not stipulate those changes must be increases or decreases.

The fiscal year 2016 budget resolution restored the longstanding neutrality principle of the Byrd rule. It was the right thing to do then, and we should reaffirm that position today. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, again, this is another attempt to do the Finance Committee's work as part of the budget. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The amendment would inappropriately bind the Finance Committee's work on any tax legislation it writes.

This point of order is meant to be a poison pill in the process and would set a 60-vote threshold on tax reform, effectively killing its efforts through reconciliation. This resolution's instructions to Finance do not specify the policy or the provisions that are going to be reported out of the committee, but the framework, as stated, will be just as progressive as the current Tax Code. The chairman of the Finance Committee and members can assure you of that result.

This amendment is unnecessary, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

I raise a point of order against this amendment under the Budget Act, section 305(b)(2).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Donnelly amendment be modified with the text of his amendment No. 1423, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I further ask that the pending Kaine amendment be temporarily laid aside and that the Brown amendment No. 1378 be made pending and be the next vote in the series, with 2 minutes of debate prior to the vote.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The budget resolution's reconciliation instruction to the Finance Committee does not and should not specify the policies or provisions that are being reported out of the Budget Committee resolution. The Finance framework includes international tax reform that will incentivize companies to invest domestically and create jobs in the United States. But this amendment defines ``patriot employers'' with a long list of criteria and pinpoints tax breaks for these companies. ``Patriot employers'' should not be defined by the budget process or by politics but by those that allow our constituents to join and remain in the workforce so as to participate in the American dream.

American companies will be able to create additional jobs based on tax relief envisioned by the Finance Committee. As such, we should pass the resolution and reconciliation in a timely manner, and we should oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number: Paul No. 1296 and Cardin No. 1375.

I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote in relation to these amendments in the order listed; that there be no second-degree amendments in order to the amendments prior to the votes; finally, that there be 2 minutes, equally divided between the managers or their designees, prior to each vote, and that all votes in this series be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Budget rules don't accommodate current tax policy. This means at least $460 billion of scored revenue loss can be attributed to the difference between a current law baseline and a current policy baseline. Many of the tax extenders covered by this amount are popular and are supported on a bipartisan basis.

This amendment is corrosive to the budget resolution's privilege. It falls outside the scope of what is appropriate for inclusion. Adoption of corrosive amendments could be fatal to the resolution's privilege, and loss of privilege could compromise our ability to pass tax reform and to enforce the budget spending limits.

Further, this amendment is also nongermane. The Congressional Budget Act requires that amendments to a budget resolution be germane--a statutory regulation we can't ignore.

So I raise a point of order against this amendment under the Budget Act's section 305(b)(2).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number: Paul No. 1298, Lee No. 1430, and Paul No. 1277.

I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate now vote in relation to the Kaine amendment No. 1249 and that following disposition of the Kaine amendment, the Senate vote in relation to the above amendments in the order listed; finally, that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the managers or their designees prior to all further votes tonight and that they be 10 minutes in length.

The next four votes will be on the Kaine amendment No. 1249, the Paul amendment No. 1298, the Lee amendment No. 1430, and the Paul amendment No. 1277.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The congressional budget clearly empowers the Budget Committee chair as scorekeeper. Since becoming chairman in 2015, I am pleased to say that the Budget Committee has always discharged its responsibilities with scores in hand, proving our important work and function without this amendment. In fact, the 28-hour rule is a recent creation, and its repeal shows no deviation from Senate practice. It would require 28 hours on every amendment.

It is also important to note that a budget resolution is not a law. Because it is not a law, it cannot supersede or replace any statutory provisions. The Congressional Budget Act is a law and sets forth the rules that the congressional budget must follow.

The proposed amendment attempts to make a significant change to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act, which should be accomplished through regular order legislation which the President signs.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The amendment seeks to reduce discretionary appropriations this fiscal year by $43 billion. As Members are aware, the resolution's discretionary figures for this fiscal year are fully consistent with the Budget Control Act spending limits. If they weren't, then the resolution would be subject to a 60-vote point of order.

This year's resolution also includes Overseas Contingency Operations funding at $77 billion. This amount is equal to the President's request and is allowable under the Budget Control Act. The

members of the Budget Committee worked hard to craft a resolution with levels that would put us on a better fiscal path, with $5.1 trillion in spending reductions over the next 10 years. The resolution already contains ample restraint to both discretionary and mandatory spending.

As the Appropriations Committee has reported many of its bills already, this amendment could be detrimental to the appropriations process as it stands today and the allocation this resolution will provide.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number: Udall amendment No. 1553, Lee amendment No. 1428, Paul amendment No. 1404, Lee amendment No. 1429, Fischer amendment No. 1552, Cantwell amendment No. 1301, Enzi amendment No. 1561, and Perdue-Whitehouse amendment No. 1167.

I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate now vote in relation to these amendments in the order listed.

Mr. President, for the information of Senators, we expect to have this series of votes and then move to passage of the resolution. That means there are hopefully approximately eight votes left. Some of them may be voice votes.

Mr. President, I yield to the leader.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, reluctantly. I have always fought to make sure the rural communities can keep the lights on. Approximately half of the land in my home State of Wyoming is under Federal control, and counties, therefore, are unable to obtain property tax revenue from a large part of the State.

Payment in lieu of taxes isn't a giveaway to these counties. It is compensation for the money they lose because they are unable to tax Federal lands within their borders, even though they are required to provide services on those lands. However, this resolution already has the reserved funds for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. I find this amendment to be duplicative and unnecessary. Furthermore, the vote-arama isn't the correct forum to contemplate making any program permanent and mandatory, even one I have long supported.

I look forward to working with my colleague from New Mexico and with other interested Members from Western States on fiscally responsible legislation to provide fairness and equity for America's rural counties and their communities.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, I request that everybody sit in their seat, and we could do these votes in 7\1/2\ minutes. If everybody wanders off and comes back in, we could be here half the night. There should only be about seven votes left, and some of those could be by voice vote, like the next one.

I appreciate the way those on that side have taken their seats and voted.

Amendment No. 1428

Mr. President, I yield back all time and ask for a voice vote.

Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank everybody who has gotten us to this point. There is this vote, and I hope there will be one voice vote after it and then final passage.

I am urging my colleagues to support this amendment. This amendment offers technical and conforming changes that are needed for the House of Representatives to be able to enforce the budget resolution. This amendment will help maintain fiscal discipline in the House so both Chambers can continue to work and put America on a more sustainable footing. What is also important for my colleagues to know is that these provisions apply to the House only. The Senate enforcement remains unchanged.

I hope you will support me on this amendment.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I know of no further amendments to the resolution.

Amendment No. 1116, as Amended

That is the substitute. I yield back time on that.

Mr. President, I am tempted to debate that, but we will get to do that as we do the provisions of this after it is all voted on.

I hope everybody will adopt the substitute by voice, and then vote on adoption of the resolution.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am going to contain my remarks to the budget and its process.

For several days--in fact, for several weeks--I have been listening to the same rhetoric of what this budget will do. This budget is a special process. It

does outline a plan for what we can do over 10 years. That is a long time. I don't know that we ever make it past the first year. In fact, some budgets do not last more than 40 days before we waive the budget, but we need to have a blueprint. This is a blueprint that covers 10 years in spite of some of the rhetoric that this bill will not do any of the things that have been claimed. The reason that it will not do any of the things that have been claimed is that everything in the budget requires action by another committee before it can be done. Maybe they will take what we have in the budget and do that. Usually, they do not. If they were to, we could balance it, in this case, over a 10-year period. That is too long. Interest is going to eat us alive before that time. We are going to have to do something else.

I remember, when President Obama came into office, he had an idea. He said that the economy was too sluggish, so he was going to do a stimulus bill. Here, they are complaining about this $1.5 trillion that, perhaps, might be part of the flexibility for doing tax reform. We did more than that in the stimulus, and it did not work and went into the hands of a few people. Some of it never did get used. Some of it went to very few people. It was supposed to go to shovel-ready projects. Some of those projects have not been done yet, so that did not work.

We have had a slow economy. In fact, it seemed to have been slowing down, not speeding up, until last November. Last November, people showed a sign of hope, and the economy started going the other way. It is reflected in the stock market and some of the commodity prices because they felt that those could be produced again.

We decided that we had to try a different approach, and the different approach was to try to put the money in the hands of hard-working Americans. That is the middle class that some of the people talk about, and it is the poor that some of the people talk about. It is everybody. When we do tax reform, it will affect everybody. In fact, there are even some studies that show that when you do the corporate tax, it increases money for individuals who are working because there will be more competition for people, and that will drive up wages. Some economists have pointed that out. Yet, rather than argue with the Congressional Budget Office about how much the change is going to be, we said: No. Go ahead. Do your static one just as though no change had been made at all. We are willing to bet that there will be a very slight increase that will cover what we are talking about as a possible deficit and that that deficit will not develop if we increase just a very small amount in productivity.

Just about every economist asked: How come you are picking such a low number? Well, we try to be conservative and hope that the number goes 4 or 5 or 6 points higher than that. If it does, we will have money to start paying back some of the debt. If it just stays at my estimated, conservative amount, at the end of 10 years, we will have a surplus of $197 billion.

We have a chance to put America on a different route, one that will increase jobs, one that will get the money into the hands of the people, realizing that they probably know better what to do for themselves and their families than we do.

I do hear a lot when I go home about different government programs that are not working. In my studies, I have found that we not only have programs that are not working but that we have programs that nobody ever takes a look at. We have programs that have a lot of duplication. We have 160 housing programs. There are really only 5 things that those 160 programs do, so shouldn't we have just 5 of them and maybe have them specifically and all under one agency and set some goals and see if they meet those goals?

I was visiting with a lady from Africa who happens to be in charge of finance in her country. She said: You know, we have performance contracts in our country, and a performance contract means that everybody, including the towns, does a list of what they are going to get done during the year.

Because they are smaller than the United States, once a year they get everybody together who has a performance contract, and everybody reviews his performance contract. If you do not meet your performance contract, there is a little bit of public embarrassment; whereas we do not even check to see if they did anything. We do not even check to see if they have plans. We have to change that, and some of the things in this budget will allow that to happen.

I appreciate the way that we finished up in committee. I allowed the other side to see the budget early. Normally, they get to see it after opening statements are done. Imagine that--do the opening statement about what you think is going to be in the budget. Although some of the speakers I have heard around here act like they are still thinking that something might be in the budget that is not, they got to see it 5 days early in exchange for submitting their amendments, which is what every other committee does. Submit the amendments early, and then we can look through them and see how much duplication there is and some that can be accepted from both sides. As a result, we started with over 150 amendments, and we voted on 25. We took five from the other side, making it a bipartisan budget.

Nevertheless, after the committee process, we brought it to the floor, and we had an open amendment process today. In fact, as for the way the rules are on this, after we voted on the last amendment--of course, before we voted on final passage--somebody could have said: Wait a minute, I have one more, and he could have gone on all night. Again, we had to think of a civil process today that would result in our being able to finish at what would be considered an extremely early hour.

There was a little different tone to the amendments than what I had seen before--I think people will agree with that--which was that they were focused on the actual items in the budget, not on ``gotcha'' amendments. Usually, they say: Well, that person is up, and he has this little soft spot, so if I throw in this amendment, he will be on record, probably, having to vote against it, or he will vote for it, and that can be used against him. Either way, they would be able to use it. I didn't see those amendments this time, and I appreciate that.

I appreciate my colleagues for their consideration, their cooperation, and a lot of patience that has gotten us to this point.

I thank Leader Mitch McConnell for allowing the Senators to do their jobs, to do them in committee, and to do them here on the Senate floor. This commitment to an open, honest, and transparent legislative process is crucial to helping Congress restore the trust of the American people.

I also owe thanks to the outstanding members of the Senate Budget Committee, who fought so hard and so tenaciously to outline a plan that could balance the budget over the next 10 years while providing the tools needed to reform our Tax Code and boost the economy. The Presiding Officer was a part of that committee, and the Senator who just finished presiding was a part of that committee. I appreciate the careful and calculated way they looked at it, provided suggestions, then asked good questions at hearings and helped to come up with that budget.

Thanks are due, as well, to the many Members on this side who came and spoke on the budget's behalf, who offered amendments to make it better--well, almost always to make it better--and who worked with each of us and each other to move through the resolution's debate and the vote process together.

I would also like to focus for a moment on some of the staff who helped to lead us here. I want to thank the Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee. That is Betsy McDonnell, my staff director, who is relatively new to the position, but you would never know that in the way she took ahold with her knowledge and friendship among people, again, on both sides of the aisle. She has been able to work some wonders to where we had the least votes in a vote-arama that, I think, we have ever had. That came from her being able to combine some of them but also in helping them redraft so that they were covering a different area than somebody else might be covering, which eliminated some of the repetition.

I want to thank my deputy staff director, Matt Giroux, and Paul Vinovich, Becky Cole, Thomas Fuller,

Elizabeth Keys, Joe Brenckle, Jim Neill, Steve Robinson, Greg D'Angelo, Tom Borck, Richard Berger, Jeremy Dalrymple, David Ditch, Susan Eckerly, Alison McGuire, Will Morris, Steve Townsend, Kelsie Wendelberger, and our interns Catherine Konieczny, Jake Whitaker, and Matt Pfeiffer. They are quite a team that has been doing a lot of work, both daytime and night and while the Senate has been out of session.

So I would also like to offer a special thank-you to Eric Ueland, who previously served as my staff director. He has been nominated for a post within the administration, and he is still waiting for his vote here, which is being delayed a lot--not just on his but apparently on all of them.

Eric has played an important role on this committee and throughout his time in the Senate. Two years ago, Eric was instrumental in helping Congress approve its first balanced 10-year budget since 2001, which represented an important step toward putting our country on not just another course but a better course. He is careful, precise, and dogged in his work. He has a tremendous knowledge of the history of the Senate and particularly the budget process. I especially appreciate his understanding of the complex Senate rules and precedents, along with the Budget Act. I wish him Godspeed in his next position in service to our great Nation.

As well, thanks are due to my personal office staff who have to carry a load because I am not there when I am working on the budget stuff, but they keep me well informed so we are progressing on some of the State stuff at the same time. I particularly have to thank my chief of staff, Tara Shaw, who, because a new administration came in and liked the employees I had working for me, hired many of them away and we had to find replacements and she did an outstanding job with that. She has helped to kind of hold me together during this whole process and gives me outstanding advice so that I know not only what I am doing but why I am doing it, and, again, she has a tremendous history of what I have done before, which helps me as a good reminder. She is an outstanding chief of staff.

I also want to include my legislative director, Landon Stropko. When you are the budget chairman and you are worried about some of the numbers, you can give the legislative director a heart attack because as budget director you have to vote against some things that have some unusual numbers to it, but it might be something people in Wyoming are interested in. We were able to resolve some of those conflicts. I always support Wyoming, as I mentioned. For anything that happens in the budget process, there is another process that will actually require some votes to finish up anything that is in there, and we will see that everything in there comes out in Wyoming's favor as well as for the rest of the Nation. I am not trying to do anything partial just to our part of the country, although a lot of things I work on have to do with very rural places. We are the least populated State in the Nation, but we are also the biggest State in the Nation so we have a lot of open space to invite people to.

I also want to thank Bart Massey, Liz Schwartz, Natalia Riggin, Aniela Butler, Charlie Carroll, Shawna Newsome, Garnett Decosimo, Chris Lydon, Aron Wehr, and Dylan Mitchell. I want to thank my Communications Director, Coy Knobel, our press team, Max D'Onofrio and Rachel Vliem, and the rest of the Wyoming team.

I have a bunch of people in Wyoming who primarily work on casework and do an outstanding job doing that.

I also want to thank the Budget Committee's bipartisan staff: Kim Proctor, Katie Smith, George Woodall, Grace Bruno, and Kevin Walsh, as well as Celina Inman, who has been on loan to us from the Government Publishing Office. You can tell around here it takes a lot of government printing.

We have also been supported by the great work of our leadership, the floor and cloak room staff. I thank them for their continued good work and dedication to this institution and the country as a whole.

In particular, I want to thank Sharon Soderstrom, Hazen Marshall, Jane Lee, and Brendan Dunn in the leader's office; Monica Popp, John Chapuis, and Emily Kirlin in the whip's office; and very especially Laura Dove, who really runs this place. She has a history from when her dad was the Parliamentarian, and I am sure there was dinner table talk that has led her to know a lot of the precedents. I have seen when somebody disagreed with her, she was able to just go over and pull out a manual and turn almost instantly to the page and say: Here it is. She does an outstanding job of helping us stay on the right track. I also thank Robert Duncan, Chris Tuck, Megan Mercer, Tony Hanagan, Mike Smith, Katherine Kilroy, and Chloe Barz in the cloakroom.

I would really be remiss if I didn't thank the Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, and her team, along with our bill and amendment clerks who kept us on the straight and narrow, but I particularly want to point out our Senate Parliamentarian who has to go through the technical details of every sentence of everything we do. When you talk about a filing cabinet of ideas all contained in one place, she does it. She knows precedent. She has been working at it for a long time. To be Parliamentarian, you have to be somebody who really likes detail work and pressure because when somebody comes in, they don't say: Take a look at this, and maybe I will see what you think next week. No, they want to know right now what you think, and fortunately she is able to, with a very great personality, say: Not yet, and then she does her research and comes up with some great explanations--not ones we always agree with--but great explanations for any decision she makes, and we really appreciate that.

So you can see that it takes a whole lot of people, and I haven't had a chance to get the list of the people from the other side of the aisle who have been working on, in some cases countering what we are doing and keeping their people informed, but that is the Senate; that is, there are all these people behind the scenes who are helping to make it work and to do it right. That is important. We want to do it right.

Now, I think we could work together a lot better if we were able to work in smaller bites. I get a little upset when we do comprehensive stuff around here. I have watched so many times when we take a comprehensive bill and soundly defeat it or maybe narrowly defeat it, but we defeat it. I figured out, when we do something that ought to be in separate bites, that this piece loses 5 votes and this piece loses 10 votes and this piece loses 12 votes, and pretty quickly you don't have a majority anymore, but if you do it in smaller bites, you may lose 5 votes, lose 12 votes, and it isn't a big deal. Getting it done would be the big deal. So if people would settle for working one issue and sticking to that issue and not say: No, I have this amendment that I know nobody will like, but this is such an important bill, if I could get it in there, it will make it through and hardly anybody will know-- that is not legislating, and we shouldn't be operating that way. We should be doing an item at a time, in bite sizes, so the American people can understand it, and we get it done.

I think a lot of people have done a great job here, including the pages. It is late, so rather than go on--I made it to after 10 p.m. so you don't have to have class tomorrow morning. With that, I will close.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this week the Senate is debating a fiscal year 2018 budget resolution focused on growing America's economy through tax policies that put more money in the hands of hard-working Americans. Tax reform is long overdue and is needed to jump start our Nation's economic growth. It is crucial that Congress approve this fiscal framework in order to eliminate the dated and stifling tax policies that are holding back not only investment and productivity but American families. It is time for more jobs, fairer taxes, and bigger paychecks.

The tax reform framework recently announced by the President and congressional leaders represents the beginning of a process aimed at boosting America's economic growth and putting more money in the pockets of everyday Americans. That tax framework has to be defined by the Finance Committee. This sets up a process so that can be done as easily as possible.

It is crucial that we allow U.S. companies--large and small, especially small--to better compete both at home and overseas, which will make the United States more attractive for investment and to do business. This will improve our competitiveness, it will help keep good paying jobs here at home, and it will bring back jobs that have been lost.

Lowering taxes on small businesses will also help unleash the ingenuity of America's job creators. We are the most ingenious and most inventive in the world.

Unfortunately, as many hard-working families personally understand, our economy has experienced 8 years of stagnant growth. This economic downturn and slow growth has resulted in a lost decade that has cost the Nation millions of jobs.

Family income is not rising as fast as it should, which has real consequences for our future. When family incomes fail to grow, it becomes difficult for parents to pay for their children's education and for their own needs. Sluggish family income growth also means less money for retirement or healthcare and makes it harder to save for a downpayment on a house.

It is no surprise that incomes are stuck, given America's overall economic stagnation over the past decade. Without wage growth, American families find it difficult to improve their standard of living. We must do better for these hard-working American families, and this budget resolution will help put our Nation on a better fiscal track with a combination of restrained spending, reduced tax burdens, and a growing economy.

The budget puts in motion a process to cut taxes for American families and job creators by $1.5 trillion over 10 years. In addition to keeping more money in the pockets of hard-working families, tax reform done right will spur investment and reinvigorate productivity here at home.

America's tax system is incredibly complicated. This budget will provide Congress with the opportunity to make more Tax Code simplifications and make it fairer for all Americans. We especially want to make sure families, small businesses, and workers are not penalized for their success.

Simplifying the Tax Code is an important part of tax reform efforts. America's current code is made up of more than 4 million words. That is seven times the length of Leo Tolstoy's ``War and Peace,'' and it is more than two times the combined length of the complete works of William Shakespeare and the King James Bible.

The National Taxpayers Union recently released some figures that calculate the burden of tax compliance for families and small businesses. The National Taxpayers Union learned that the total annual time burden of tax compliance is more than 6 billion hours. Let me repeat that. The total time burden for tax compliance is more than 6 billion hours. That is a lot of family time. That costs families and small businesses nearly $34 billion a year on tax software and other out-of-pocket expenses, as well as--this is the important part--$229 billion in time and labor to comply with the Tax Code. The Tax Code's combined burden of $263 billion is more than the gross domestic product of 154 nations.

To understand just how complex and outdated the U.S. Tax Code has become, it is important to put it in the historical context of how it has grown over the years. In 1913, the 1040 Income Tax Form consisted of three pages, with one page of instructions. More than 100 years later, that same form now consists of 2 pages, with 106 pages of basic instructions and, depending on taxpayer circumstances, 13 separate schedules, each with numerous pages of instructions. In fact, there are more than 70,000 pages of instructions in total. This is why, every tax season, Americans are forced to wade through an ever-changing labyrinth of forms and regulations when they file their returns.

Each year, hard-working families navigate a minefield of tax definitions and tax tests in order to fully reap the benefits of tax credits. Is it any wonder that many who are eligible may not even claim these credits because of this

complex web of tax forms? For example, there are many definitions of ``child'' in the Tax Code, meaning a family with children may qualify for some child benefits but not others and may fail to receive the full benefits they deserve.

To promote fair treatment, our budget is focused on providing the tools needed to simplify the Tax Code. Let me repeat that. These are the tools that are needed to simplify the Tax Code. The Finance Committee still has to plug in details and eliminations and a final version, and that would allow Americans to keep more of what they earn. That is another part of the process, but this part of the process is necessary in order to make sure we get to that part of the process. Hard-working families deserve an economy that provides higher wages and more and better jobs. Pro-growth tax reform can boost small businesses, and it can free Americans to make their own decisions about how to spend their hard-earned money.

I want to repeat some of those numbers. I am an accountant. Usually, numbers put people to sleep, but I think these are ones people will understand.

The National Taxpayers Union did some figuring on the burden of tax compliance by families and small businesses. This National Taxpayers Union learned that the total annual time burden of tax compliance is more than 6 billion hours, which costs families and small businesses nearly $34 billion a year on tax software and other out-of-pocket expenses as well as--and this is the important part--$229 billion in time and labor to comply with the Tax Code. The Tax Code's combined burden of $263 billion is more than the gross domestic product of 154 countries.

We need to take action. We need to pass this budget so the process can be simplified and expedited, and we can get to that yet this year so people, when they are filing their taxes next year, can take advantage of what is being done here. I think we will have bipartisan support in making these important changes. The process is set up so there can be that bipartisan support since it goes through the Finance Committee, and we have been promised there will be a markup, which will allow everybody to make amendments to the Tax Code and the tax bill. Then it will come to the floor, where everybody will have a chance to make amendments to the bill.

This sets the budget and sets up the opportunity to have some tax reform this year so people can take advantage of it next year. I ask my colleagues to support this budget and work with us on getting tax reform that will make a difference for all hard-working Americans.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I want to explain why I took us out of the quorum call. If I leave us in a quorum call, all time will be charged to my side. If I take us out of a quorum call, even though no one is here to speak, it will get divided equally. That is fair, and that is what we are trying to do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up the following amendments en bloc and ask unanimous consent that they be reported by number and that the rollcall votes in relation to the amendments occur in the order listed: Hatch No. 1144, Sanders No. 1119, Nelson No. 1150, Heller No. 1146, Sanders No. 1120, and Collins No. 1151.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes following this first vote--the one we just finished--be 10 minutes in length, all of the rest of them. Actually, there is a request for 5 minutes in length. We doubt that we can do it in 10, but the unanimous consent request is for 10 minutes in length.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This amendment would increase mandatory spending and taxes each by more than $1 trillion. I understand my colleagues are concerned about Medicaid. I want to assure them that this budget is focused on preserving Medicaid for those who need it most, but in order to preserve Medicaid, we must also be honest about its fiscal trajectory. The status quo for Medicaid is simply unsustainable. Not only are Medicaid outcomes lackluster, the program is on a path toward bankrupting our States. The budget before us puts Medicaid on a more sustainable path.

Critics argue that this budget pays for tax relief through cuts to Medicaid. I want to clarify that. This budget does not rely on savings from Medicaid to achieve tax reform. In fact, the economic growth attributed to reforming the Tax Code will help improve Medicaid's fiscal health.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It sounds like something simple. It is aimed at ending the budget resolution. This budget does not cut Medicare, and it does not provide tax breaks for the wealthy. It does not protect special interest tax loopholes. Also, anything that we do here has to be completed in other committees in order to ever happen.

This budget does slow Medicare's projected annual rate of growth by approximately 1 percent in comparison to the CBO's baseline. The CBO estimates that Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund will become exhausted prior to the end of the budget window of 2025, at which point it will no longer be able to pay full benefits to seniors. This budget resolution protects Medicare by extending the life of the trust fund. It also establishes a path toward pro-growth tax reform, which will generate additional economic growth in Medicare.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, this next vote will be the last roll call vote of the day. Senator Collins has graciously agreed to do a voice vote on her amendment.

On this amendment, though, I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. We should not prejudge the Finance Committee's consideration of tax reform but allow the bill to go through regular order, where it will be open to amendment.

This amendment is corrosive to the budget resolution privilege. It falls outside the scope of what is appropriate for inclusion.

Adoption of corrosive amendments could be fatal to the resolution's privilege, and loss of privilege could compromise our ability to pass tax reform and enforce the budget spending limits.

Further, this amendment is also nongermane. The Congressional Budget Act requires that amendments to a budget resolution be germane. It is a statutory requirement we can't ignore. So I raise a point of order against this amendment under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 305(b)(2).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for the Joint Economic Committee debate be reserved to occur from 4:30 p.m. until 5:45 p.m. today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for the duration of the Senate's consideration of H. Con. Res. 71, the majority and Democratic managers of the concurrent resolution, while seated or standing at the managers' desks, be permitted to deliver floor remarks, retrieve, review, and edit documents, and send email and other data communications from text displayed on wireless personal digital assistant devices and tablet devices. I further ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators be permitted on the floor during consideration of the budget resolution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the staff be permitted to make technical and conforming changes to the resolution, if necessary, consistent with the amendments adopted during Senate consideration, including calculating the associated change in the net interest function, and incorporating the effect of such adopted amendments on the budgetary aggregates for Federal revenues, the amount by which the Federal revenues should be changed, new budget authority, budget outlays, deficits, public debt, and debt held by the public.

Mr. President, earlier this month, the Senate Budget Committee took an important first step toward tax reform by approving a fiscal year 2018 budget resolution focused on growing America's economy through tax policies that put more money in the hands of hard-working Americans.

This week, we take the next step as the Senate begins debating the budget blueprint to pursue long-overdue tax relief for families and job creators that will jump-start economic growth. It is

crucial that Congress approve this fiscal framework in order to eliminate the dated and stifling tax policies that are holding back American investment and productivity.

As Budget Committee chairman, I am proud that Congress and the President are tackling these important issues. After 8 years of stagnant growth, it is clear our Nation needs a simpler, fairer, and more transparent tax system that will leave more dollars in the pockets of hard-working families.

The last time Congress was able to accomplish large-scale tax reform was in 1986. Just think how much has changed in the country and world in those 31 years, including our Tax Code. America's tax laws are incredibly complicated and work to slow our economy and hurt American families. Incredibly, our current tax system actually benefits foreign- based companies while harming U.S.-headquartered companies and employers. We continually ask why jobs are leaving this country. A big reason is the hostile tax landscape.

The Senate budget aims to help reverse this trend by setting the stage for pro-growth tax reform that will lower taxes on American families and on job creators by a net $1.5 trillion over 10 years. By keeping more money in the pockets of hard-working taxpayers, these reforms--if done right--will boost investment, wages, and productivity here at home.

Pro-growth tax reform should reward hard work, savings, and encourage investment. It should broaden the tax base while lowering the marginal tax rates, streamline our tax laws, and limit government distortion of market-based decisions. Our tax policy should provide for a globally competitive corporate tax rate and an international tax system that does not penalize U.S. companies.

It is no secret that tax policies influence the everyday dollars-and- cents decisions of individuals and small businesses. They help drive such decisions as to whether to work an additional hour or invest in an additional unit of capital. This is why economic experts note that potential economic growth should always be considered when talking about tax cuts. In fact, the Joint Committee on Taxation states ``tax policy can directly influence the level of labor supply, physical capital, human capital, and technology in an economy by changing the after-tax returns to certain economic activities or changing the cost of pursuing such activities.''

Pro-growth reform that removes government distortions of the marketplace would also allow for resources to be reallocated from what produces the best tax outcome to what is the best economic use. This efficiency will lead to increased investment, growth of businesses, and higher economic output or gross domestic product, GDP. In fact, increasing GDP from private sector growth can provide additional dollars to the Treasury. Let me repeat that. Better tax policy will boost the value of everything we produce, and this will mean more revenue for the Federal Government.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, an increase in productivity of one-tenth of 1 percentage point could increase revenue into the Treasury by $273 billion over a 10-year period. A return to our historic average growth would decrease projected spending deficits by over $2 trillion in the 10-year window--more than enough to pay for the decrease in revenues assumed under static scoring conventions that don't account for economic growth. That is what we have to operate under.

In addition to the Senate Budget's key role in reforming the Tax Code, it is also a serious fiscal plan. If Congress and the administration can adhere to this blueprint, we will be taking steps to get our fiscal house in order with a combination of restrained spending, reduced tax burdens, and a growing economy.

The Senate Budget Committee has put together a responsible budget that provides a path to creating a more effective, efficient, and accountable government for hard-working taxpayers. To accomplish this goal, the budget proposes $5.1 trillion in savings over the next 10 years, while investing in a strong national defense, providing for the care of our most vulnerable citizens, and not touching Social Security.

From the start, this budget was focused on achieving on-budget balance by the end of the 10-year budget window. By 2026, the resolution--with ensuing economic growth from tax reform and an improved regulatory landscape--will generate a $79 billion on-budget surplus. This surplus would rise to $197 billion by 2027.

In addition to the fiscal reforms proposed by this resolution, it also continues efforts to respond to concerns about the broken budget process. This budget promotes curtailing budget gimmicks, increasing honesty and accuracy by government scorekeepers, and ending the ``spend now, pay later'' mentality of Washington.

It is also important to note the thorough and robust committee process that produced this Senate budget resolution. More than 150 amendments from both sides were filed, and 29 were voted on during our daylong markup process. This budget reflects bipartisan input and includes five amendments that were accepted from Democratic members of the committee.

The next step for tax reform will build on the Budget Committee's open and transparent committee process. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch have promised that tax reform legislation will also move through the committee process. In other words, any speculation people have heard about where the tax is, is not right because it has a process to go through. This will provide Finance Committee members the opportunity to offer amendments before the full Senate considers the legislation. So we will consider it in committee and then on the floor. Once the bill moves to the Senate floor, every Member will be able to offer amendments before voting on the measure.

This budget serves as a framework to expand economic opportunity for each and every American. It reflects our belief in the American entrepreneurial spirit and that by allowing American families and small businesses to keep more of their hard-earned dollars, they will innovate and invest money in ways that will grow our economy. We believe our Nation's best days--and those of its citizens--are ahead of us.

The time to act is now. If we don't change course, our Nation will continue to experience the sluggish economic growth of the last decade. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support America's hard-working families and employers and help put our Nation on a better course. Approving this budget focused on pro-growth tax reform does just that.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1116.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks on October 18, 2017, that it be in order to call up the following amendments; that the time until 3 p.m. be for debate on the amendments, equally divided between the managers or their designees; and that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed, with no second- degree amendments in order prior to the votes: Hatch amendment No. 1144 and Sanders amendment No. 1119.

Mr. President, Senators should be prepared for additional amendment votes to occur during the series at 3 p.m.

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

Mr. President, I 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 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, October 17, 2017, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Consumer Data Security and the Credit Bureaus.''

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 Tuesday, October 17, 2017, at 10 a.m. in room SD-430 to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Cost of Prescription Drugs: How the Drug Delivery System Affects What Patients Pay, Part II''.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 17, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: 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, and Holly Lou Teeter, to be United States District Judge for the District of Kansas.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 17, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., in room SH-216 to hold a hearing entitled ``Open Hearing on the Nomination of Christopher Sharpley to be the inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency.''