Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to address two elements of the Senate's process for evaluating judicial nominations: the role of the American Bar Association and the so-called blue-slip courtesy. Each can influence the appointment process, and we must be diligent to ensure that neither is abused.

The Eisenhower administration was the first to request the input of the ABA--American Bar Association--on prospective judicial nominations. Speaking to the 1955 ABA convention, President Eisenhower thanked the ABA for helping him and his advisers to ``secure judges'' of the kind he wanted to appoint. If that sounds as though the ABA was a part of the administration, it was.

The ABA evaluated individuals before they were even nominated. Individuals deemed not qualified by the ABA were almost never nominated. No other interest group was given such a quasi-official veto over nominations to any other office.

What could justify such a special role for an interest group? What could do that? The theory is that the ABA was a nonpolitical professional association concerned only with the legal profession and the practice of law.

At its 1933 annual meeting in Grand Rapids, MI, for example, the ABA's executive committee considered changing the ABA constitution to allow ``discussion and expressions of opinion on questions of public interest.'' After arguments that this would revolutionize the scope and purpose of the ABA, no one--not one person--supported the amendment, to the best of my knowledge.

In February 1965, ABA President Lewis Powell, who later served on the Supreme Court, wrote that ``the prevailing view is that the Association must follow a policy of noninvolvement in political and emotionally controversial issues.'' If that view actually prevailed in 1965, it did not last.

The ABA House of Delegates soon crossed the political Rubicon and began taking positions on a host of issues through Federal arts funding, affirmative action, the death penalty, welfare policy, immigration; you name it, and the ABA has endorsed the liberal position, oftentimes the most liberal position. The ABA not only opines on such issues through resolutions but also lobbies legislatures and files briefs in court cases.

The ABA has done exactly what it chose not to do back in 1933 and revolutionized the scope and purpose of the organization. It abandoned nearly a century of noninvolvement in political issues, the condition that was said to justify a special role in the judicial appointment process. It hardly seemed reasonable that the ABA could somehow seal off its evaluation of judicial nominees from all of this political activism so that its conclusions could still be trusted.

In 1987, several members of the ABA evaluation committee said that Judge Robert Bork was not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. I said at the time that the ABA was ``playing politics with the ratings.''

Three years later, several of us on the Judiciary Committee, including now-Chairman Grassley, expressed the same view in a letter to Attorney General Richard Thornburgh. We wrote that the ABA ``can no longer claim the impartial, neutral role it has been given in the judicial selection process.''

This conclusion has been bolstered by academic research. In 2001, Professor James Lindgren of Northwestern University law school published a study in the Journal of Law & Politics that examined ABA ratings for nominees of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Controlling for race, gender, and a range of objective measurable credentials, Professor Lindgren found that Clinton nominees were 10 times--10 times--more likely than Bush nominees to be rated well qualified by the ABA. In fact, he found that ``just being nominated by Clinton instead of Bush is better than any other credential or than all other credentials put together.'' Professor Lindgren concluded that ``the patterns revealed in the data are consistent with a conclusion of strong political bias favoring Clinton nominees.''

A decade later, three political scientists published a study in the Political Research Quarterly, looking at ABA ratings for U.S. Court of Appeals nominees over a 30-year period. Applying recognized social science methods, they concluded that ``individuals nominated by a Democratic president are significantly more likely to receive higher ABA ratings than individuals nominated by a Republican president. . . . [W]e find . . . strong evidence of systematic bias in favor of Democratic nominees.'' You don't say.

President Trump recently nominated Steven Grasz to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The distinguished Senators from Nebraska have, in the Judiciary Committee and here on the Senate floor, detailed Mr. Grasz's extensive experience and wide support throughout the legal community. He served as chief deputy attorney general of Nebraska for nearly a

dozen years, during which time he defended the constitutionality of the State's law banning partial-birth abortion. That might have been his most serious sin in the eyes of the ABA, which has aggressively embraced the abortion agenda for more than four decades.

In 1969, the ABA formed a committee on overpopulation, which immediately launched a project on the law of abortion and endorsed the Uniform Abortion Act in 1972, even before the Supreme Court's now- infamous Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion on demand. The committee endorsed Federal funding of abortion in 1978, and in 1990, by more than two to one, they opposed any requirement of parental notification before abortions are performed on minors. The ABA, again, fully embraced the abortion agenda in 1992 and never looked back. It is no wonder that they would deem someone like Mr. Grasz not qualified for the bench.

President Trump has also nominated Brett Talley to the Federal district court in Alabama. Tally attended Harvard Law School. He spent years in a prestigious clerkship at the Federal appellate and trial court levels. He has worked here in the Senate. He has served as a deputy solicitor general of the State of Alabama. He has served in the Justice Department most recently as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Policy. He enjoys the support of both of Alabama's home State Senators and has a sterling reputation in the legal community. Yet he, too, has been deemed not qualified by the ABA. How is that possible? That determination is nakedly political and should not be taken seriously.

The ABA once defined its purpose in terms of the legal profession and the practice of law. It has, however, chosen a different path. By doing so, the ABA has not only abandoned what once might have justified its role in judicial selection but has also cast serious doubt on the credibility and integrity of its judicial nominee ratings. The ABA was, of course, free to do so, but it should not expect that its actions have no consequences.

The other element of the judicial confirmation process that I want to address is the so-called blue-slip courtesy. This is an informal practice, begun in 1917, by which the Judiciary Committee chairman seeks the views of Senators regarding nominees who would serve in their States. This practice really gets noticed only when the President and Senate majority are of the same party. In that situation, as we face today, the question is whether a home State Senator can use the blue- slip courtesy to block any Senate consideration and, therefore, effectively veto a President's nominees.

Since the blue-slip courtesy was established, 19 Senators, including myself, have chaired the Judiciary Committee--10 Democrats and 9 Republicans. Only 2 of those 19 chairmen treated the blue-slip courtesy as a single-Senator veto. One of them, apparently, was to empower southern segregationist Senators to block judges who might support integration.

The other 17 chairmen fall into two categories. The early chairmen allowed objecting home State Senators to present their views in the nominee's confirmation hearing. In the last few decades, chairmen of both parties have said that a negative blue slip would not veto a nominee if the White House consulted in good faith with the home State Senators. That is the approach that Chairman Joe Biden took and that I continued when I was chairman, each of us under Presidents of both parties.

The blue-slip courtesy, then, has been a way to highlight the views of home State Senators and to encourage the White House to consult with them when choosing judicial nominees. And it works. When chairmen of both parties have chosen, only a handful of times, to proceed with a hearing for a nominee who lacked two positive blue slips, their decision was consistent with this approach.

Today, Democrats want to rewrite the history of blue slips and redefine the very purpose of the courtesy behind the process. They want to weaponize the blue slip so that a single Senator can, at any time and for any reason, prevent Senate consideration of judicial nominees. They want to change the traditional use of the blue slip because they can no longer use the filibuster to defeat judicial nominees who have majority support.

Democrats opposed filibustering judicial nominees during the Clinton administration. Then, in just 16 months during the 108th Congress, Democrats conducted 20 filibusters on judicial nominees by President George W. Bush. These were the first judicial filibusters in history to defeat majority-supported judicial nominees.

The filibuster pace dropped by two-thirds under President Obama when Republicans conducted just 7 filibusters in 30 months. Claiming that declining filibusters were nonetheless a crisis, Democrats in 2013 abolished nomination filibusters for all executive and judicial nominations except for the Supreme Court.

Democrats took away the ability of 41 Senators to block consideration of judicial nominations on the Senate floor, but now they demand that a single Senator have that much power in the Judiciary Committee by turning the blue-slip courtesy into a de facto filibuster. Like the ABA's rating of nominees, nothing but politics explains this flip- flopping and manipulation of the confirmation process.

On October 31, I addressed this issue here on the Senate floor and suggested that the history and purpose of the blue-slip courtesy could help guide its application today. I still believe that. The views of home State Senators matter, and the White House should sincerely consult with them before making nominations to positions in their States. Home State Senators enjoy countless ways to convey their views to colleagues here in the Senate, and every Senator may decide whether and how to consider those views. But in the end, the blue slip is a courtesy, not an absolute veto. This distinction matters because tomorrow the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on a nominee to the U.S. court of appeals from a State with two Democratic Senators. One has returned the blue slip; the other has not.

Chairman Grassley's decision to hold a hearing is completely consistent with the history and purpose of the blue-slip courtesy. Democrats falsely claim that Chairman Grassley is eliminating what they say is a longstanding precedent that home State Senators may automatically veto appeals court nominations. No such precedent exists, or ever has, unless the practice of only two chairmen for only a fraction of the last century constitutes controlling precedent--and we all know it shouldn't.

It is beyond hypocritical for Democrats to pretend they actually care about the confirmation process precedent. They began the practice of forcing time-consuming rollcall votes for nominees with no opposition at all. They began the practice of using the filibuster to defeat majority-supported nominees. They began the practice of forcing the President to renominate individuals multiple times. They began the practice of forcing cloture votes on unanimously supported judicial nominees and then delaying a confirmation vote for days. These weren't actions undertaken by Republicans. There is one side, and one side only, that has continuously pushed this envelope.

Democrats cite a 2009 letter to President Obama from the Republican conference and an op-ed I publishing in 2014 defending the blue-slip courtesy. In each situation, the Democratic majority was actually threatening to abolish the blue-slip policy altogether. In my op-ed, I emphasized that the blue-slip courtesy is intended to encourage consultation by the White House with home State Senators.

When he became chairman in 2015, Senator Grassley explained the blue- slip process to his constituents in a Des Moines Register op-ed. He wrote that the process has value and that he intended to honor it. He is doing just that by returning to the real history and purpose of the blue-slip courtesy.

My Democratic colleagues seem to think that the confirmation process should be whatever they want it to be at whatever moment they so choose. Now they demand that, contrary to most of the last century, a single Senator should be able to do informally what 41 Senators can no longer do formally. They demand following precedent that does not exist while creating new obstruction precedents of their own. Democrats have forced the Senate

to take 60 cloture votes on nominations so far this year, 13 of them on judicial nominations. That is nearly nine times as many as during the first year of all new Presidents--all new Presidents--since the cloture rule was applied to nominations in 1949.

I have been in the minority a number of times, multiple times. I get it. Democrats want their way, and they don't always get it. That hardly means that the majority in general and Chairman Grassley in particular are not being fair, consistent, or evenhanded. The blue-slip courtesy has a history, and it has a purpose. It exists to allow home State Senators to share their views with the Judiciary Committee and to encourage White House consultation with them before making nominations.

Neither a liberal interest group like the American Bar Association nor abuse of the blue-slip courtesy should be allowed to further distort and politicize the judicial confirmation process.

It is a disgrace. It really is a disgrace, the way the Democrats changed the rules automatically, overnight, without even consulting with Republicans, and doing it solely to give advantage to their side, even though this is a process that really ought to have fair treatment on both sides at all times.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, today, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I am releasing a chairman's mark for the Senate version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, legislation that is the culmination of years of effort to reform our Nation's Tax Code. We have been at this a long time, and today marks a significant step forward in this effort. While we refer to this document as a chairman's mark, it has really been a group effort, with significant input from all the Republican members of the Finance Committee and great work from all of our staff. I want to thank everyone involved for their hard work, as well as their feedback, perspectives, advice, and ideas.

The last time Congress enacted a comprehensive overhaul of the Tax Code back in 1986, President Reagan famously noted that the American people would finally have a tax code they could be proud of. And in 1986, that was likely true. At that time, updates to the Tax Code were necessary to keep pace with the technological and geopolitical changes our Nation had been facing. That sounds pretty familiar, Mr. President. It is, after all, what we have been saying for the last several years. The world of 1986 was vastly different from the world we live in today. Advances in the past three decades have been monumental. Yet our Tax Code has not advanced, and it is failing us.

The American people have dealt with years of stagnating wages, sluggishness in labor markets, and weak growth in the economy. Businesses are fleeing our country to find more favorable conditions in other countries. We have been working for years to address these issues and to meet the needs of the 21st-century global economy.

Fortunately, we now find ourselves in a position to make good on all of these years of hard work. A big part of that is the fact that our current President is fully engaged on tax reform, unlike his most recent predecessor. So we have been focused this year on providing middle-class tax relief, reforming the business tax system, and fixing our obscenely outdated international tax regime.

The mark we are releasing today will accomplish all of these goals and more. It will reduce individual rates across the board and direct substantial relief to low- and middle-income families and workers. It will bring down corporate tax rates--a goal long shared by Republicans and Democrats--and provide businesses with new opportunities for growth and expansion. It will modernize our international tax system, bringing to an end our worldwide tax regime, a relic that should have been retired many years ago. We have been laser-focused on reducing taxes for the middle class, and that is exactly what this bill will do.

Combined, these changes to our broken Tax Code in the chairman's mark will give hard-working taxpayers across the country bigger paychecks and more opportunities. They will grow our economy, raising wages and improving the standard of living for all Americans. They will once again make America the best place in the world to create, grow, and keep a business--where we create more jobs and sustain a vibrant, growing economy.

I will have more to say on the specifics of the mark in the coming days. For now, I just want to give my colleagues on the Finance Committee an opportunity to share their thoughts on the steps we are taking today.

Before we get to that, I do want to acknowledge the elephants in the room. Only Republicans will be standing up today to speak in favor of the mark, and I expect we will hear some negative comments from our friends on the other side of the aisle soon enough. On that point, I will just reiterate what I have said many times in the past: Our desire from the outset of this endeavor has been to have Democrats join us in this effort.

I have personally invited my colleagues to come to the table, to share their views, and to work with us in good faith. Yet I expect that we will hear a lot about supposed process fouls in the coming days. Let me make it clear to anyone listening: As chairman of the Senate's tax writing committee, I haven't turned anyone away from the process. I haven't refused to listen to anyone's ideas or suggestions. And I continue to say, with conviction, that I am still willing to have them onboard and hope they will be willing to get onboard and join us in this effort.

A critical objective in the effort is to provide relief and support to the large swath of Americans in the middle class who have been left behind, without economic gain or opportunities for growth.

Our tax reform efforts--represented in the chairman's mark put forward today--show that we are listening to those calling out for relief. We have a historic opportunity to help, and that opportunity should not be squandered by anyone on either side of the aisle for cheap political points.

With that, I am grateful to be a member of this body and grateful to be chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which is a very powerful and hard-working committee--both Republicans and Democrats. I am grateful to make these remarks today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Martin Pippins, a detailee on the Senate Committee on Finance, be granted floor privileges for the duration of this Congress.

Mr. President, as we prepare to commemorate Veterans Day this weekend, I would like to offer my sincere appreciation to the dedicated veterans who have served our country so bravely over the years. Only in a great country such as ours do we have so many willing and able citizens who volunteer for duty. These selfless individuals understand the importance of protecting our country and are willing to give their lives to do it.

Many of these brave men and women make the ultimate sacrifice, such as my own brother, Jesse Morlan Hatch who was killed in World War II. SSG Aaron Butler of Utah also comes to mind. Staff Sergeant Butler was tragically killed in the line of duty last summer while serving in Afghanistan. The valor of patriots like Jesse and Aaron is indicative of all men and women who volunteer to serve in our Armed Forces. I have always had a deep-rooted respect for America's servicemembers and her veterans.

On behalf of the State of Utah, I would also like to express our humble gratitude for our Nation's veterans and active servicemembers. Throughout

this weekend, Utah will host a variety of ceremonies, all dedicated to celebrating our veterans. The town of Magna will be hosting its annual Veterans Day parade; the town of Howell will be naming its community center after SGT Rocky D. Payne, who was killed in Iraq in 2005; and the students of Granite Park Junior High School will be hosting a special Veterans Day assembly. With events being held all across our State, it is clear to see that Utahns hold our Nation's veterans in the highest esteem. I am honored to represent a State that honors our veterans.

I would also like to personally acknowledge the city of Layton, which will be hosting a grand Veterans Day parade to be followed by the groundbreaking ceremony of a new Vietnam War memorial wall. I could not even begin to describe the endeavor that Mayor Bob Stevenson, the city of Layton, the Utah State Legislature, and so many others have undertaken to bring this wonderful memorial to Utah. I am grateful for their leadership, and I am delighted to see this memorial become a reality.

I will close today by saying this: To all veterans and your families, thank you. Thank you for your sacrifice, for your commitment, and for your dedication to this Nation and its citizens. Most of all, thank you for your patriotism and faith in America. To our Nation's veterans we owe a debt of gratitude that can never be fully repaid.

(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to finish my full speech.

Mr. President, the Senate will consider this week four nominations for the U.S. courts of appeals. Two are well regarded professors at prestigious law schools, and two are highly respected State supreme court justices. Each of them has received the highest rating from the American Bar Association, ``well qualified,'' which my Democratic colleagues have said is the gold standard for evaluating nominees.

I applaud the majority leader for committing to do what it takes to confirm these nominees, including, if necessary, working through the weekend to get it done.

I want to address the state of the confirmation process by focusing on one of these nominees, as well as attempts to change the process itself.

Later today we will confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Seventh Circuit. She has taught at the Notre Dame Law School for 15 years in fields that are especially relevant to the work of a Federal appellate judge. A distinguished and diverse group of more than 70 law professors at schools from Massachusetts to California and from Minnesota to Florida wrote that her scholarship is ``rigorous, fair-minded, respectful and constructive.''

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record that letter.

Mr. President, the criticisms of Professor Barrett are laughable and ridiculous. One leftwing group, for example, objects because she has no judicial experience. I don't recall this group being concerned about the nearly 60 appeals court judges appointed by recent Democratic Presidents who had no prior judicial experience. In fact, President Clinton appointed a judge with a profile strikingly similar to Professor Barrett's--a woman who clerked on both the U.S. court of appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court and who, after a few years in private practice, taught at a well-known Midwestern law school for 15 years and then received the ABA's highest rating to serve on this very same court. Leftwing groups supported the Democratic President's nominee but opposed the Republican President's nominee.

It appears that Professor Barrett has one big strike against her, and that is her religious faith--an important part of her life, by the way. That is all it takes for her critics to say that she has no place on the Federal bench, that women or men with such personal religious faith cannot be impartial judges who respect the rule of law. That is bunk. It is ridiculous, it is despicable, it is stupid, and it is beneath the dignity of this body. I strongly reject that view. I find it appalling.

These critics apparently believe that judges decide cases based on their personal beliefs. They may believe that, but Professor Barrett certainly does not. In her hearings she pledged to unflinchingly follow all Supreme Court precedents. She said: ``It is never appropriate for a judge to apply their personal convictions whether derived from faith or personal conviction.'' This has been her view for nearly two decades.

In a 1998 law journal article she coauthored, she explored the real- world situation of how a judge should approach the death penalty when her religious beliefs counsel against capital punishment. Professor Barrett wrote that ``judges cannot, nor should they, try to align our legal system with the church's moral teaching whenever the two diverge.''

In her hearing, I asked Professor Barrett about this article and about what should happen when a judge faces a conflict between her personal views and the law. I wanted the record to be crystal clear so that her views would not be distorted or misrepresented. Here is what she said, as shown on this chart:

I believe that the law wins . . . if a judge ever felt that

for any reason she could not apply the law, her obligation is

to recuse. I totally reject and I have rejected throughout my

entire career the proposition that a judge should decide

cases based on a desire to reach a certain outcome.

Her critics appear, to put it most charitably, to have read a different article by a different Professor Barrett. My Democratic colleagues observed that religious dogma and the law are different--so far, so good, as far as I am concerned. But then there is this: ``The dogma lives loudly within you, and that is of concern.'' Can you imagine, in this day and age, one of our colleagues asking a question like that?

Professor Barrett, as I described, has consistently argued for nearly 20 years that judges may not decide cases based on their personal religious beliefs. So what is the problem? It appears that the problem for some critics is not Professor Barrett's religious faith in general but the particular religious faith she has. Now this sounds disturbingly like a religious test for public office. In fact, it is a religious test by some of our colleagues, who ought to be ashamed of themselves.

I thought America's Founders put that to rest when they wrote article VI of the U.S. Constitution, prohibiting a religious test for public office. I thought we had grown past periods in our history when suspicion was leveled against someone running for public office simply because of the church to which he or she belonged. I thought the free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment included being free from that kind of suspicion and prejudice.

Earlier today, the assistant Democratic leader tried to distract attention from the clearly inappropriate examination of Professor Barrett's religious beliefs. He suggested that by asking Professor Barrett whether a judge's personal beliefs should take precedence over the law is no different than expressing concern that ``the dogma lives loudly within you.''

Let me be clear. Inquiring whether a nominee will have her judicial priorities straight regarding the law and her personal views is one thing. Inquiring about her religious beliefs themselves is something very different, and I believe it should be off limits.

I enthusiastically support Professor Barrett's nomination precisely because she knows the difference between her personal beliefs and the law and she is completely committed to maintaining that distinction when she becomes a judge.

Let me now take a step back from this nominee and focus on the confirmation process itself.

The Constitution gives the power to nominate and appoint judges to the President and it gives the power of advice and consent to the Senate as a check on the President. The latest dispute about the Senate's part in this process concerns a practice used in the Judiciary Committee to highlight the views of Senators regarding judicial nominees who would serve in their States. Judiciary Committee chairmen have come to use a blue piece of paper to inquire about a home State Senator's views on a particular nominee. We call it the blue slip.

Today Democrats and their grassroots and media allies are demanding that the blue-slip process be used as a single-Senator veto, even though the vote is for a court of appeals judge who will represent a wide variety of States if not the whole country. They demand that a single home-State Senator be able, at any time and for any reason, to stop a nomination dead in its tracks without any Judiciary Committee consideration at all. That is ridiculous.

I can understand why they want to weaponize the blue slip like this. After all, they once used the filibuster to prevent confirmation of Republican judges but then abolished nomination filibusters so that no one else could use them. Today, Democrats are trying to turn the blue- slip process into a de facto filibuster. They want a single Senator to be able to do in the Judiciary Committee what it once took 41 Senators to do on the Senate floor.

Shortly after Democrats abolished nomination filibusters, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy warned: ``As long as the blue-slip process is not being abused by home-state Senators, then I will see no reason to change that tradition.'' He was right. The key is to know when that line has been crossed, and Senator Leahy made that point.

I have served on the Judiciary Committee for more than 40 years. That experience leads me to suggest two things that can help us prevent abuse of this part of the confirmation process. The first thing to keep in mind is the history of the blue-slip process.

Now, 19 Senators have chaired the Judiciary Committee, including me, since this practice began in 1917--10

Democrats and 9 Republicans. Only 2 of those 19 chairmen have treated the blue slip as a single-Senator veto. According to the Congressional Research Service, until the 1950s, no Judiciary Committee chairman treated a negative blue slip as a single-Senator veto. Home-State Senators could express their objections in confirmation hearings, and the Judiciary Committee might report a nomination to the Senate with a negative recommendation, but in each case the process moved forward.

Senator James Eastland, who was chairman when I first joined the Judiciary Committee--a Democrat--was the first chairman to treat a negative blue slip more like a veto. Since then, according to CRS, the blue-slip policy has been modified to ``prevent a home-state Senator from having such absolute power over the fate of a nominee from their state.''

Under Chairman Ted Kennedy, for example, a negative blue slip did not stop consideration of a nominee. Chairman Joe Biden actually put his policy in writing in a letter to President George H.W. Bush in early 1989. A negative blue slip, wrote Chairman Biden, would not be a veto if the administration had consulted with home-State Senators. When I became chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 1995 and again in 1997, I wrote the White House Counsel that I would continue the Biden policy.

The second thing to remember is the purpose of the blue-slip process. As I wrote in both 1995 and 1997, it is ``a courtesy the Committee has established to ensure that the prerogative of home state Senators to advise the committee of their views is protected.'' Nearly two decades later, in the 2014 op-ed I wrote for The Hill, I said the same thing-- that highlighting the views of home-State Senators encourages genuine consultation with the Senate when the President chooses judicial nominees.

The history and purpose of the blue-slip process will help identify when it is being used properly and when it is being abused, and, believe me, confirmation abuses have occurred. Before 2001, for instance, only 1 percent of judicial nominees with no opposition were confirmed by a time-consuming rollcall vote. Under President George W. Bush that figure jumped to 56 percent.

Before 2001, there had been four filibusters of judicial nominees and no majority-supported judicial nominee had ever been defeated by a filibuster. Under President George W. Bush, Democrats conducted 20 filibusters and ultimately kept multiple appeals court nominees from being confirmed.

In July, we held another unnecessary cloture vote on a district court nominee.

After voting 97 to 0 to end the debate that no one apparently wanted in the first place, Democrats forced us to delay the confirmation vote by 2 more days. This was the first time in history that a unanimous cloture vote was not followed immediately by a confirmation vote.

What is going on here? What is wrong with our colleagues on the other side? Why are they doing this? They could have taken a few hours but instead took 2 weeks from the filing of the cloture motion to the final unanimous confirmation vote that took place here.

Now, this is not the only time Democrats forced cloture votes to slow consideration of nominees they end up supporting. What was the point of all that? It is simple. Democrats want to make confirming President Trump's judicial nominees as cumbersome and time-consuming as possible.

At this point in President Obama's first year, when Republicans were in the minority, the Senate took cloture votes on less than 1 percent of the executive and judicial branches--1 percent of all the nominees that we confirmed. This year, with Democrats in the minority playing confirmation spoiler, the Senate has been forced to take cloture votes on more than 27 percent of the nominees we confirmed. In fact, including those we take this week, Democrats have forced us to take 51 cloture votes on President Trump's nominees so far this year. That is seven times as many as during the combined first years of all nine Presidents since the cloture rule has applied to nominations.

These were the nominations under Obama and this is President Trump. What is going on here? That is seven times as many as during the combined first years of all nine Presidents since the cloture rule applied to nominations.

In 2013, Democrats abolished the ability of 41 Senators to prevent confirmation. Today, they are demanding the ability of just one Senator to prevent confirmation. If that is not an abuse of the confirmation ground rules, I don't know what is.

It would be a mistake to do to the blue-slip process what has been done to other elements of the Senate's advice and consent role. This can be prevented by following the less partisan guidance of history and purpose to chart our way forward.

The blue-slip process exists to highlight the views of home State Senators and of course to encourage the executive branch in this country--whoever is the President--to be open to the feelings of the home State Senators and to consult with them when choosing judicial nominees. If it is serving those purposes, the blue-slip process should not become yet another tactic for hijacking the President's power to appoint judges.

What we have going on here today with President Trump's nominees is hypocritical, and it is wrong. It is debilitating to the courts, and it is unconstitutional. It bothers me that my colleagues on the other side are doing this when they, themselves, were treated much more fairly by our side--not just much more fairly but absolutely more fairly. This is really pathetic. I hope we can somehow or other bring ourselves to treat each other on both sides better.

With regard to judges, whoever is President ought to be given great consideration for the choices. That is what we do when we elect a President. I know it is tough on the other side that President Trump is the President, but he is the President, and he is picking really excellent people for these judicial nominations. I hope we start changing this process and get it back to being a reasonable, effective, honest, and good process.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of my amendment No. 1144. This legislation is designed to do two things. It is important for us to consider this. First, it would protect Medicaid for our Nation's most vulnerable citizens, namely, low-income children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with disabilities. Those are important vulnerable citizens, as far as I am concerned. In addition, it would strengthen Medicare in order to help protect health benefits for current and future beneficiaries. Make no mistake. Our Nation faces a growing entitlement crisis, and Medicare and Medicaid are at the heart of it.

Under ObamaCare, Medicaid enrollment has increased by about 28 percent due to the expansion of the program in 32 States.

Between 2014 and 2015 alone, expansion States received about $79 billion in Federal funds. The problem is that even before ObamaCare, Medicaid was plagued by quality issues, and States' hands were tied whenever they tried to advance innovative solutions to improve patient care.

Of course, even before ObamaCare, Medicaid spending on both the Federal and State levels was growing at an astronomical rate. Contrary to popular myth, ObamaCare did not fix this. It made things worse.

As chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over Medicaid, I have been working with a number of my Republican colleagues as well as State officials, stakeholders, and the American public to find solutions that will improve the quality and ensure the longevity of the Medicaid Program. That work will continue into the future.

Medicare is a separate problem entirely. Everyone knows that when it comes to Medicare, we are on a collision course with fiscal economic catastrophe facing us.

Over the long term, Medicaid faces more than $33 trillion--that is with a ``t''--in unfunded liabilities according to the independent actuaries at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

In the nearer term, the Medicare trustees project that Medicare Part A, which deals with inpatient hospital payments, will be officially bankrupt in 2029, resulting in steep benefit cuts for seniors relying on the program.

Even a number of prominent Democrats who recently served as Medicare trustees have recommended swift legislative action to ``minimize the impact on beneficiaries, providers, and taxpayers.''

To put it simply, we need to address the fiscal challenges facing these programs if we are going to preserve them for future generations.

Despite the claims of a number of my Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we can't even make a dent in these problems by focusing solely on the tax side of the equation.

I know many like to claim that every wrong would be righted and every problem would be solved if we simply raised taxes on rich people. Anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes looking at the fiscal condition of our Federal health programs will tell you that is preposterous. The money just simply isn't there. The Republican budget acknowledges this reality.

My colleagues have argued that the budget would cut Medicare spending, but that isn't true. In fact, under the budget, Medicare spending would increase every year, though at a slightly slower rate, in order to introduce some level of fiscal sanity into the process.

All told, the budget would slow Medicare's rate of growth by about 1 percent compared to the CBO baseline.

Furthermore, the budget resolution does not propose any specific programmatic changes to either Medicare or Medicaid, even though my friends on the other side of the aisle like to argue otherwise.

Let me be clear on another point. Despite a number of claims to the contrary, the budget resolution does not rely on savings from Medicaid in order to provide tax relief.

My colleagues, the ranking member of the Budget Committee and the senior Senator from Florida, have proposed amendments to dramatically increase taxes to the tune of about $1 trillion for Medicaid and half a trillion dollars for Medicare over the next decade in order to double and triple down on this particular set of problems, the failed policies that have made these programs unsustainable in the first place.

These are not serious proposals. They are poison pills designed only to give the other side a round of partisan talking points that are really ridiculous.

A vote for my amendment is a vote for a stronger, more fiscally sound

safety net that preserves Medicaid for our most vulnerable citizens, keeps our promises to Medicare's current beneficiaries, and strengthens the program for those who will need it in the future.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment. It is a good amendment. It is the right thing to do. It makes us better prepared for the future. It seems to me that every one of us would be proud to vote for it and to solve these problems that the amendment will solve.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield back our time.

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

Mr. President, this week, the Senate will vote on a budget resolution for fiscal year 2018. While there are many elements to this particular resolution, most of this Chamber's and the public's attention are on the reconciliation instructions related to tax reform.

Before I go too far, I first want to thank Chairman Enzi and all of our colleagues on the Budget Committee for their work on this resolution. Chairman Enzi has been a critical player in the ongoing effort to reform our broken Tax Code, and his work to craft this budget resolution and move it out of committee has been critical to this effort.

For the next step, he is going to need help passing the resolution here on the floor. I think we will get there.

Specifically, this budget resolution contains a $1.5 trillion reconciliation instruction for tax reform. That is a good number, putting meaningful tax reform within reach.

As the debate over the budget and the instruction moves forward, I think it is critical that everyone understand what tax reform will do for our country and, perhaps more importantly, what will happen if we fail.

Tax reform has been the chief focus of the Senate Finance Committee for years now. In the 6\1/2\ years that I have been the lead Republican on the committee, we have had about 70 hearings focused on the Tax Code. In the vast majority of those hearings, we have heard both Democrats and Republicans acknowledge the inefficiency of our current tax system, with very few members having spent their time and energy defending the status quo, which is not at all surprising.

Our current tax system imposes undue burdens on middle-class families. Our current tax system is obscenely complex, riddled with credits, exemptions, and deductions, many of which were designed to benefit special interests. Our current tax system's complicated rate structure makes it difficult for families to plan and, for some workers, creates a disincentive to work for additional earnings. Our current tax system subjects American businesses and job creators to the highest tax rates in the industrialized world. Our current tax system creates incentives for businesses to move headquarters and operations offshore, eroding our Nation's tax base. And our current system has forced companies to keep trillions of dollars offshore, preventing further investment and growth here at home.

Reform of this broken system is long overdue. The last major overhaul to our Tax Code was more than three decades ago. Even if the Tax Code hadn't changed dramatically since that time,

the economy of 1986 was dramatically different from the one we have today. Of course, the code has undergone a number of piecemeal changes since the 1986 reform, but that approach has left us with a system that simply does not work.

Fundamental change is what our tax system needs--change that takes the entire system into account and change that will create a tax code that, at the very least, looks as though it was designed on purpose. That is what we aim to provide once the Senate and the House have passed a consensus budget resolution.

On the Finance Committee, we are working to craft legislation pursuant to the guideposts in the unified framework released last month. Our bill, based on the uniform tax reform framework, will give much needed relief to millions of low- to middle-income families. It will level the playing field for Americans and for American job creators and promote more investment in the United States.

In the end, all of this will mean bigger paychecks for American workers, a more vibrant U.S. economy, and more American jobs. But without this budget resolution, we are unlikely to get there.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to produce a tax reform product that could get 60 votes. I have spent years asking my Democratic colleagues to meaningfully engage in this effort. To be sure, there have been Democrats who have been willing to put themselves out there on tax reform in recent years, including the former Finance Committee chairman, Max Baucus, and our current ranking member, Senator Wyden. But they have generally been the exception.

When President Obama was in office, many Democrats typically talked about tax reform only in the context of raising revenues to fuel additional spending, which isn't tax reform at all. It is simply raising taxes.

Under President Trump, the focus, at least among many in the Democratic leadership, seems to be about preventing passage of anything that could be viewed as a win for the President and Republicans in Congress. Perhaps I am wrong about that--and I hope I am--but when we are talking about tax reform these days, most of the talk from my friends on the other side of the aisle has been about unreasonable and unprecedented process demands.

That is unfortunate. There are a number of areas of tax reform where Democrats and Republicans are largely in agreement. Those areas include middle-class tax relief, bringing down the corporate rates, and fixing our international tax system to make American companies more competitive.

Given these shared concerns, I am still hopeful that some of our Democratic colleagues will join us in this effort. I remain willing to work with any Member of the Senate who wants to engage in this effort in good faith.

Historically speaking, tax bills that pass through the budget reconciliation process tend to have support from both parties. In fact, when Republicans have held the White House and Congress, purely partisan tax reconciliation bills have not been enacted. That being the case, I think the unified framework envisions a tax reform approach that both parties can and should support.

Long story short, I haven't given up on producing a bipartisan tax reform package. But, once again, we need to pass this budget resolution if we are going to move the ball forward. That being the case, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution before us this week and to work with us as we develop tax reform legislation that will help middle- class families and job creators throughout the country.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Florida be granted the floor as soon as I finish.

Madam President, over the weekend, the Washington Post ran an article about a piece of legislation I helped negotiate last Congress. It was entitled the ``Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act'' and was intended to encourage greater collaboration between DEA and the regulated community in the fight against opioid abuse. The Post article was sharply critical of this legislation, suggesting that it effectively gutted DEA's ability to do its job. It also suggested the pharmaceutical industry put one over on Congress. I rise to set the record straight on these allegations and to provide a fuller account of how this legislation passed the Senate and became law.

First, some background. The Controlled Substances Act requires drug distributors to obtain a ``registration'' from DEA in order to distribute controlled substances, including prescription drugs. The act further authorizes DEA to suspend a distributor's registration in certain circumstances, such as where a distributor has been convicted of a crime involving controlled substances or had a State license suspended. Before suspending a registration, DEA must issue a show cause order directing the distributor to explain why its registration should not be suspended. A court then decides whether DEA has met its burden to suspend the registration.

The Controlled Substances Act empowers DEA to bypass this standard suspension process in cases where DEA determines there is ``an imminent danger to the public health or safety.'' In such cases, DEA can issue an immediate suspension order that immediately and without court process terminates the distributor's ability to distribute prescription drugs. Prior to last Congress, the Controlled Substances Act did not define what constitutes an imminent danger to the public health or safety. This left DEA's ability to immediately suspend a party's ability to distribute prescription drugs essentially unfettered. Such unfettered discretion concerned the patient advocacy and drug manufacturing community because an immediate suspension order cuts off all drugs from a distributor, including those intended for legitimate users. A balance is needed to ensure that individuals who need prescription drugs for treatment receive them but that such drugs are not diverted for improper purposes.

So the bill I helped negotiate last Congress, for the first time, defined what constitutes an imminent danger to the public health or safety. In doing so, it created a standard for when DEA may suspend a party's registration to distribute prescription drugs without any prior court process, and that standard is that there must be a ``substantial likelihood of an immediate threat'' that death, serious bodily harm, or abuse of a controlled substance will occur in the absence of an immediate suspension.

In both committee and floor statements, I made clear that this standard is intended to cover situations where evidence of diversion indicates there is a substantial likelihood that abuse of a controlled substance or of any controlled substances will occur.

The Washington Post article glosses over much of this background. It does not explain that the immediate suspension order is intended to be an extraordinary measure. It does not explain that prior to the bill, DEA had basically carte blanche authority to impose this measure. It does not explain the DEA has other enforcement tools available, including show cause orders which are supposed to be the agency's standard operating procedure. Equally problematic, the article barely even mentions the patient advocacy concerns that motivated the bill to begin with.

I want to quote from a letter that a coalition of patient and health advocacy groups sent to Congress in support of the legislation:

Federal agencies, law enforcement, pharmaceutical industry

participants and prescribers each play a role in working

diligently to prevent drug abuse and diversion. However, it

is also imperative that legitimate patients are able to

obtain their prescriptions without disruption. Your

legislation addresses both goals by fostering greater

collaboration, communication and transparency between

industry stakeholders and regulators, leading to more

effective efforts to combat abuse while protecting patients.

The letter was signed by, among others, the American Academy of Pain Management, the Fibromyalgia & Chronic Pain Support Network, and the Drug Free America Foundation.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Madam President, the Washington Post article discusses virtually none of this. Rather, it baldly asserts that Congress cut out DEA's legs from underneath it through a sinister conspiracy of deep- pocketed drug companies and their cunning allies in Congress. Nothing could be further from the truth.

To begin with, I have spent 40 years of my life in the Senate fighting the scourge of drug abuse. I stood side by side with Ronald Reagan in the War on Drugs. In 2000, I coauthored the Drug Addiction Treatment Act, or DATA 2000, one of the first efforts in Congress to address the opioid epidemic. Last year, I led conference negotiations on the Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act, a landmark piece of legislation that is making a real difference in the fight against opioid and heroin abuse. Currently, I am working on legislation to address opioid addiction in the veteran community. I am no patsy when it comes to drug abuse--prescription or otherwise--and neither are my colleagues.

Indeed, forget me for a moment. Let's take Senator Whitehouse, who helped me negotiate the bill with DEA and DOJ. Are we to believe that Senator Whitehouse, a former Rhode Island attorney general and a former U.S. attorney, a crusader against corporate interests, is somehow in the pocket of the drug companies? Of course not. The charge is laughable on its face.

How about the fact that this bill passed both Houses of Congress by unanimous consent? Did the entire U.S. Congress decide to shield its eyes to the true sinister intent of this legislation? Did the Senate Judiciary Committee, which approved the bill by voice vote, decide to look the other way? This is a committee that includes former prosecutors, state attorneys general, and U.S. attorneys who, at the time, included both the current Attorney General of the United States and the current Senate minority leader.

Are we seriously to believe that Jeff Sessions, the toughest foe of illegal drugs I have ever known in my entire life, sat on his hands while Congress eviscerated the DEA's enforcement authority? No, of course not.

To merely state these allegations is to make clear how utterly ridiculous they really are. Not one Senator or Member of the House opposed this bill. Do you know why? Because DEA, the very agency the bill impacts, the very agency that supposedly can no longer do its job because of this legislation, agreed to let it go forward.

Let me be clear. The DEA could have stopped this bill. They could have stopped it at any time. In fact, they did stop a previous version in 2014 that had different language. I spent months negotiating with DEA and with DOJ until they were at a point they were comfortable allowing the bill to proceed. If they had asked me to hold the bill or to continue negotiations, I would have done so.

I brought the bill to markup only after DEA and DOJ agreed with me on a path forward. Anyone who claims that I or anyone else steamrolled DEA and DOJ on this bill is either ignorant or woefully misinformed.

That brings me to another point that was largely lost in all the insinuations in the Washington Post article. The language that purportedly eviscerated DEA's enforcement power--that is, the requirement that the DEA show a substantial likelihood of immediate threat before issuing an immediate suspension order--was written by DEA and DOJ lawyers and provided to Hill staff as a proposed compromise.

So let's get this straight. Congress took language that DEA and DOJ wrote, inserted it into the bill, and now Congress is the bad guy? I should note that other aspects of DEA and DOJ's proposed language changed, but that key phrase ``substantial likelihood of an immediate threat''--the phrase that critics now point to as gutting DEA's enforcement authority--came from DEA and DOJ. And lest we forget, President Obama signed the bill into law on the advice of his own DEA Administrator.

I think we need to be candid about what is going on here. Opponents of the current administration are trying to derail the President's nominee to be head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Representative Tom Marino, by mischaracterizing and trying to rewrite the history of a bill that he championed. They are being aided in their efforts by a group of former DEA employees who took an extremely hard line against drug companies when they were at the Agency and who are upset that the DEA chose to pursue a more collaborative approach after they left. I don't fault these individuals for their passion, but I do reject the notion that there was some sort of sinister conspiracy at play. And I find it unconscionable that critics of the bill and of Representative Marino would flat-out ignore the very real patient concerns that motivated this bill and motivated my personal involvement with it. You think this bill was a sop to the drug industry? Tell that to the Fibromyalgia and Chronic Pain Network. Tell that to the American Academy of Pain Management. Tell that to the Drug Free America Foundation.

If we are going to make this bill a political football and try to use it to sink Representative Marino's nomination, let's tell the full story. Let's be fair. Let's at least be honest. Let's not gin up a one- sided narrative based entirely on the statements of former Agency officials who disagreed with the change of leadership.

No matter how you try to spin it, this is not the latest episode of ``House of Cards.'' Rather, let's be clear that Members of this body negotiated this bill in good faith with the DEA and the Department of Justice. Let's be clear--the DEA and DOJ themselves generated the language that critics now claim is so problematic. Let's remember that this bill passed by unanimous consent and that every single Member of this body and the House of Representatives agreed to it. Let's remember, too, that the DEA and DOJ could have stopped this bill at any time if they had wanted to but instead chose to allow it to proceed. After all, they stopped an earlier version in 2014 that had different language. They could have stopped it again. And even after the bill passed Congress, they could have advised President Obama not to sign on. Don't forget that the bill bears his signature. Let's not pretend that DEA, both Houses of Congress, and the Obama White House all somehow wilted under Representative Marino's nefarious influences.

Provocative headlines and clever framing may drive page hits, but this body's decisions should be based on the full story. It should be based on all the facts. A single news article that tells only one side of the story should not derail a nominee who has a long history of fighting illegal drug use and of helping individuals with chronic conditions obtain treatment. Let's not ignore the full story here in the rush toward easy politics.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the nomination of Randal Quarles to help oversee the Federal Reserve System. Mr. Quarles is certainly eminently qualified to serve in this capacity in this important position. Through his long experience in public service and the private sector, Mr. Quarles has gained experience in financial regulation, economics, and the firsthand operations of financial institutions. He also has a proven track record of leadership and policy management.

The Fed's responsibilities are extensive, and they are varied, and the roles Mr. Quarles has been nominated for come during a unique period in the Fed's history. The years ahead will be decisive for the development of the Federal Reserve, the American economy, as well as domestic and international financial reform. It is paramount that the Fed be equipped with a well-rounded leadership team so it can meet the many challenges and opportunities of maintaining monetary and financial stability. I firmly believe that Mr. Quarles is an ideal fit to take on such responsibilities--for the success of the Federal Reserve and the good of our Nation.

In closing, I applaud and strongly support the President's nominee to help oversee the Federal Reserve System. I know him personally. I know what a fine man he is. I know what an excellent leader he is. He will do a good job.

Importantly, I would note that it is the intention to confirm Mr. Quarles to the position of Vice Chair for Supervision--another essential role.

It is critical that Mr. Quarles begin his work at the Fed as soon as possible. There really is no time to waste. He will do a great job.

(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, last week I joined with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the National Economic Council, our Senate majority leader, the Speaker of the House, and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee in releasing a unified framework for tax reform.

This is a big step in the ongoing effort to overhaul our Nation's miserable Tax Code. I have been in the Senate awhile, and I can only remember a few times when the White House and the House and Senate leadership were in agreement on an issue as complicated as tax reform so the current state of affairs is pretty remarkable. Still, as we made clear in the framework document, this is only a step; it is not a final product.

The House and the Senate tax-writing committees will be tasked with putting together legislation that is aimed at meeting the goals and principles that are outlined in the framework. Therefore, as the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, my top goal at the moment is to produce a comprehensive tax reform bill that can get at least 14 votes in the committee because, without that, there likely will not be any tax reform. Yet, before we can get to that point, we have to pass the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution.

Make no mistake, the budget resolution is critical to our tax reform efforts. If we are going to move a tax reform vehicle in the current environment, we need a resolution in place with a workable reconciliation instruction that will allow us to produce a bill of sufficient size and scope to give middle-class taxpayers a pay raise, grow our economy, and create more American jobs.

As we all know, the Budget Committee will begin marking up its resolution later today, and it will include the type of instruction we need in order to produce a bill that will fix our broken tax system, boost economic growth, and give a pay raise to middle-class Americans.

I am grateful for the leadership of Chairman Enzi and all of our colleagues on the Budget Committee for their work in crafting the resolution, and I urge everyone who supports tax reform, whether he is in Congress or elsewhere, to support the budget resolution.

Once again, that is the next big step in this process, and it is an absolutely essential step. Once that is done, the Finance Committee will be able to move forward on crafting and marking up a tax reform bill.

Some have said tax reform is a do-or-die moment for the GOP. I wholeheartedly believe that to be true, not just because we might lose an election or that our poll numbers might go down, it is that Republicans have promised, for some time now, that we will deliver meaningful, comprehensive tax reform that will spur economic growth, increase wages and well-paying jobs, and simplify our existing system. We need to deliver on that promise and not just because we will suffer politically if we do not. We need to deliver because the cost of doing nothing--the cost of maintaining the status quo for the foreseeable future--will be too much for the American people and our economy to bear.

The last major overhaul of our Tax Code was 31 years ago, and in many respects, our current tax system was built for the economy of 1986 and is ill-suited for the needs of today. In the last 31 years, we have seen a dramatic increase in international trade and expanded globalization. We have seen the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of most centrally run economies, and of course we have seen the development and rapid expansion of the internet, which has, in many respects, remade the entire world several times over.

America no longer has a competitive Tax Code. Instead, we have a Byzantine system with exceptionally high rates and an array of overlapping and often less-than-effective deductions, exclusions, and credits. This is not just a parade of horribles trotted out by Republicans, these problems have been acknowledged by a number of prominent Democrats, like Presidents Clinton and Obama, not to mention our current Senate minority leader and the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Wyden.

We all know the system is not working. Still, in many respects, we have politics as usual around here when we talk about tax reform. While both parties have supported reforms in the recent past, including a number of reforms that are included in the framework, we are already hearing the same, tired arguments that come up every time Republicans want to talk about tax reform.

According to the opponents of reform, our ``plan'' will cut taxes on the superrich. Our ``plan'' will raise taxes on the poor. Our ``plan'' will harm the middle class. Our ``plan'' is a giveaway to greedy corporations. These are some pretty odd claims given that as of right now, no completed ``plan'' exists. We have a framework, and we are not calling it that simply for PR reasons. We have some basic principles and targets that the leaders have agreed upon, but as the framework makes clear, the Finance and Ways and Means Committees have been tasked with filling in the details and writing legislation.

Here are just some of the details that are not included in the framework:

Income thresholds for individual tax brackets. The framework includes rate targets for three brackets, but the breakdown of those brackets is still to be determined.

The size of the enhanced Child Tax Credit. The framework anticipates an increase, but it does not specify an amount.

The existence and rate of the highest bracket. Our document leaves room for the creation of a fourth bracket at the high end, but it does not include any rate target.

Safeguards to prevent abuse of the separate passthrough rates.

These are just some of the key details that need to be filled in.

My point is, no one can make any definitive statements or make any credible estimates about the fiscal impact of the plan until the committees do more work. Still, that has not stopped people from trying.

Last week, the left-leaning Tax Policy Center released an unattributed ``analysis'' of the framework that appeared to confirm a number of blanket claims that critics have made about our ``plan.'' As we all know, left-leaning pundits, liberal media outlets, and many of our friends on the other side seem to love the TPC, apparently because the TPC is willing to provide estimates and analysis about tax plans without waiting for all of the boring details.

We all remember well when the TPC wrote Mitt Romney's tax plan for him and claimed that he wanted to raise taxes on the middle class to finance a tax cut for the top 1 percent. Their analysis of the Romney plan--a plan that was not yet in existence beyond a broad set of principles--became the gospel for our friends on the other side, and their estimates were repeated time and again; never mind the fact that they did not have nearly enough evidence to support their assertions.

The TPC appears to be on the same track with regard to the unified framework. I guess they think they can get away with it again. Maybe they can. I don't know. The TPC's document from last week included a relatively precise estimate of lost revenue that they claim would result from the framework. It also estimated how much of the tax benefit of the framework would go to the top 1 percent of earners, again with a fair amount of precision. How they got to these results is, certainly, to me, a mystery.

There is simply no way for the TPC or anyone to deliver these kinds of specific estimates with the information that is provided in the framework. To get their estimates, they filled in blanks with numbers from other proposals, added a pile of exceptionally pessimistic and biased economic assumptions, and came up with a tax plan that, for all intents and purposes, is their own. Just because they say this analysis was performed on the unified framework and was not just a plan they made up themselves does not suddenly make their estimates credible.

Still, I expect to hear a lot about the TPC's ``analysis'' in the coming weeks. Some will treat their estimates as fact, and I expect we will see them cited in a few campaign commercials before too long. Breaking from any notion of professional accountability, the TPC's ``analysis'' was, according to the TPC's report, authored by the TPC's staff. Evidently, no one in an organization that describes itself as ``nonpartisan'' wanted to put their name on a document that would be used in such a partisan manner, but let's be clear. We cannot separate this kind of speculative ``analysis'' from the way it is being used by our friends on the other side. It has become fodder for more of the same partisan attacks.

In going forward, I hope the TPC and other think tanks will acknowledge the still undefined features of the framework, including the commitment to maintaining the current progressivity of the Tax Code, which will require adjustments in order to achieve. I think groups like the TPC can be helpful if they avoid the partisan criticisms and focus on shedding light and providing accurate assessments of various proposals. Everyone who has an interest in these issues should wait and let the tax-writing committees do their work.

In the Finance Committee, we are going to write a committee bill. Any Member who is sincerely interested in working with us will get a chance to contribute, whether he is a Republican or Democrat. We are going to have a markup during which the bill will be debated and amended in the light of the day. Thereafter, I expect that we will have a fair and open amendment process on the floor. Despite some odd claims to the contrary, the Joint Committee on Taxation will score the bill.

At the end of the day, people will be free to disagree with the final bill and to vote against it, but no one will be able to credibly claim that the legislation was written behind closed doors or that the American people did not get a chance to see what was in the bill and read accurate accounts of its fiscal and economic impacts.

I want to work with anyone who is willing to come to the table in good faith. I think the framework puts forward a number of general proposals that both parties can support. There is fertile ground for bipartisanship here if my Democratic colleagues are willing to set aside some of the unreasonable preconditions that they have put on their involvement in tax reform. The last time I checked, both Republicans and Democrats supported tax relief for low- and middle- income families. The last time I checked, reducing our uncompetitive corporate tax rate was a bipartisan objective. The last time I checked, both Republican and Democratic voters were in need of higher wages, more jobs, and a more competitive economy.

This is going to be a difficult process, whether it is bipartisan or partisan. There is a long list of sacred cows in our Tax Code, each of them with a constituency that will fight to keep them in place. We are going to have to eliminate a number of tax deductions and credits if we are going to be fiscally responsible, including a number of provisions that are, under the current system, pretty popular in certain segments of the country. The framework specifies two deductions that should stay in place because they benefit many in the middle class and they are designed to achieve important policy goals. Everything else is currently on the table, including items that I have personally championed in the past.

We have already seen stories about how Republicans are already divided on the fate of the State and local tax deduction. Make no mistake--that is a pretty popular deduction, particularly among Democrats, but it has some Republican supporters as well. I would remind my colleagues who are adamant about preserving the State and local tax deduction that the benefits of that particular provision skew heavily toward higher income earners, especially those living in high- tax cities and States. So if our main goal is to help the middle class, I would hope that there won't be many Senators who will fall on their swords in order to keep this particular deduction in place.

Still, nothing is set in stone, and most items are currently still up for negotiation. The State and local tax deduction is, like virtually every other tax provision, currently on the table, and we may very well have to pare it back one way or the other. We need to see how the numbers work out before we can speak definitively on this or any other tax policy item.

Before I conclude, let me just say that this is a once-in-a- generation opportunity. There is currently more momentum in favor of tax reform than at any other time in the past three decades. All of us should be willing to take advantage of this opportunity. All of us should be able to give in order to get a final bill done that will make sense and will get us back on track. I am hopeful that we can have a bipartisan effort here, but whether we do or don't, I intend to see that we get tax reform done and that we get it done in the best interest of our country, the best interest of our people, and above all, the best interest of the middle class.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, there are a number of issues I wish to speak on today, but first I wish to extend my most sincere condolences to the victims of violence in Las Vegas.

What we witnessed last night was a tragedy without precedent. Today, our thoughts are with all those folks who have lost--the families, loved ones, and

friends whose lives will never be the same as a result of this shooting.

Our hearts are with all of you, and so are our prayers. We love you. We stand by you today. We ask that God will stand by you always.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Elder Robert D. Hales, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

With his family gathered around his bedside, Elder Hales passed away peacefully yesterday afternoon in between sessions of LDS General Conference. More than a beloved leader, he was a caring family man, a powerful role model, and a close friend whom I will miss dearly. Today, I wish to pay tribute to Elder Hales as we remember a life well-lived.

Elder Hales was born on August 4, 1932, to Rulon and Vera Hales. He grew up on Long Island in a diverse neighborhood, which allowed him to become familiar with a variety of different cultures. Although raised on the east coast, Elder Hales always maintained strong western roots. He would speak fondly of the summers he spent in Utah bailing hay, riding horses, tending sheep, and herding cattle in the mountain pastures. Although Elder Hales would later become an accomplished businessman, he was no stranger to manual labor, and he credited his early days working on the farm as the source of his strong work ethic.

During his teenage years, Elder Hales distinguished himself as a student and excelled as a pitcher for his high school baseball team.

After enrolling at the University of Utah, he returned home to New York for the summer and met Mary Crandall. It was love at first sight. They married a year later in the Salt Lake Temple on June 10, 1953.

Following his graduation from college, Elder Hales joined the U.S. Air Force, where he served as a fighter pilot. His squadron's motto was ``Return With Honor.'' In his own words, ``The motto was a constant reminder to us of our determination to return to home base with honor after we had expended all of our efforts to successfully complete every aspect of our mission.''

``Return With Honor'' would become the credo by which Elder Hales lived his life, expending every effort as a faith leader, father, and friend to better himself, bless others, and build the Kingdom of God.

Yesterday afternoon, after decades of dedicated service as a minister of Jesus Christ, he completed his mortal mission and returned with honor to our heavenly home. The challenge he leaves behind is for all of us to do the same.

To the very end, Elder Hales was a model of selfless service. Even in his later years, beset by illness and old age, he continued to carry out the responsibilities of his apostolic office without hesitation and without complaint. Elder Hales decided when he was still a young man that he would never let anything get in the way of his church service.

Following his career in the Air Force, Elder Hales enrolled at Harvard Business School, where he was called to serve as Elders Quorum president, one of the most demanding leadership positions in the LDS Church. Because of his heavy course load, Elder Hales could have easily declined the calling, but he gladly accepted it. His wife Mary guided him in making this decision. When Elder Hales said he might fail his classes if he agreed to serve as the Elders Quorum president, Mary said:

Bob, I would rather have an active priesthood holder than a

man who holds a master's degree from Harvard. We'll do both.

With Mary's unwavering support, Elder Hales served successfully as an Elders Quorum president in addition to earning his MBA. He would later go on to work as a high-level executive at multiple national corporations.

From this formative experience, Bob and Mary learned that God would provide for them as long as they put the gospel first. That is why Elder Hales did not hesitate to leave his business career behind when he was called to serve as a mission president and later as an apostle in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Elder Hales provided a model of servant-leadership for all of us to follow. He was a true disciple of Jesus Christ, putting the welfare of others before self and the Kingdom of God above all. He was gracious and loving, thoughtful and kind. In all things, Elder Hales exemplified humanity and humility, which was the hallmark of his life.

While millions of us grieve his passing, we take peace and comfort in knowing that his service continues on the other side.

I knew him very well, played golf with him, thought he was one of the great men in my life. I am going to pay tribute to him and his family here today in front of the whole United States Senate and the country. He was one of the most worthwhile people I ever met. We are going to miss him.