Floor Statements

Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. President, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings.

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

Mr. President, I rise to discuss once again the ongoing effort to reform our Nation's Tax Code.

I have been coming to the floor regularly to talk about this subject for more than 6 years, and, during that time, more and more Americans have recognized the need to fix our broken and outdated tax system. Members of Congress from both parties have similarly acknowledged that, when it comes to our Tax Code, the status quo is untenable.

President Trump has made tax reform one of his top priorities, which is essential. Presidential leadership on tax reform has been sorely lacking in the past. Of course, for some the involvement of the President in this endeavor complicates matters. Indeed, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle are, by all appearances, bound and determined to block the passage of any part of President Trump's agenda even if, in terms of policy, there is common ground and it is good for all Americans. Still, I welcome the involvement of the President in this effort and hope that more and more of my colleagues will eventually do the same.

Today I want to take a few minutes to rebut the growing narrative in the media and elsewhere that tax reform is going to be a secretive exercise, involving the input of only a few key players.

True enough, there have been meetings involving the administration, House and Senate leaders, and tax writers in recent weeks, wherein we have been discussing tax reform at a high level in an effort to reach some agreement. However, while this process may result in an agreed upon framework, this will not be the be-all and end-all of tax reform. On the contrary, as chairman of the Senate's tax-writing committee, I am committed to ensuring a robust process in the Senate for developing, considering, and passing any tax reform package. That is how the Senate functions best, and that is what I intend to see happen.

Toward that end, I have been working to involve all of the Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee in this effort. We have a number of great Senators on the committee, many of whom have put in years of work on different areas of the tax system. I think it would be foolish to let that experience and expertise go to waste, especially at this time in our lives. Every Republican on the committee is involved in this process, and I have asked some Senators to focus on particular areas.

For example, I have asked Senators Enzi and Portman to focus on the international tax system. This issue is essential. Our antiquated international tax system leaves American businesses at a decidedly competitive disadvantage, and it is one of the main drivers behind the stream of inversions and foreign takeovers we have seen in recent years. Both of these Senators have put in a lot of time and a lot of work on this issue in developing proposals for a better path forward, and some of that development in the past has occurred with substantive input from our Democratic friends. With both Senators Enzi and Portman working on this issue, I think we can and will see significant progress.

In addition, I have asked Senator Grassley, a former Finance Committee chairman himself and currently chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to take a look at our individual tax system. I think most of us here in Congress--and not just on the Republican side--would like to see a tax reform bill that reduces the tax burden on middle-class individuals and families. I think Senator Grassley and others will put their experience to good use.

Likewise, Senator Thune has quite a bit of experience and expertise when it comes to the business tax system, and he has done a lot of work over the years to reform the estate tax. So I have asked him to provide his thoughts and advice as we work through these issues.

I have asked Senators Heller and Cassidy to work on solutions for energy tax policy. Similarly, I have asked Senator Roberts to find solutions to tax issues relating to agriculture.

There are other issues out there, as well, and over time I intend to enlist the help of other committee members to focus on particular tax issues and provide advice and assistance on crafting suitable reforms.

So, as you can see, the idea that tax reform is going to be a closed- door exercise is absurd, at least as things pertain to the Senate. Every Republican member of the Senate Finance Committee is involved in this effort.

Of course, we will need to go beyond the committee as well. There are Members throughout the conference with particular interests and expertise relating to tax policy. Many of my colleagues have introduced bills over the years and have become outspoken advocates on a number of key issues. I want those Members to be involved as well.

Just to be clear, I do not think this process should be limited to just Republican input. I want to see Democrats at the table. I want a bipartisan process that renders a bipartisan result. I think the relevant leaders from the administration have said much the same thing.

I have reached out to my Democratic colleagues on the Finance Committee and invited them to participate. Once again, I do not believe this process has to be limited to the committee. Any Member of the Senate, from either party, should have an opportunity to express his or her views and ideas and have them considered as part of this process.

I am willing to sit down and work with anyone who wants to be a good- faith participant in this endeavor and who wants, ultimately, to see it succeed. After all, we have had years and years of bipartisan efforts, including working groups and reports, to find common ground. Recently, however, we have not been hearing much from our Democratic colleagues and friends when it comes to tax reform.

We have heard some of the usual accusations that Republicans are hell-bent on giving massive tax breaks to the super wealthy and inflicting some harm or another on the middle class--total bullcorn but, nevertheless, a constant theme by those on the other side. It is a constant, annoying theme by those on the other side.

We have also heard some process demands that some have set as preconditions for any real bipartisan tax reform discussions. All too often, those preconditions either reflect a lack of willingness to compromise or outright demands for things that are unrelated to tax reform.

In other words, we have heard our colleagues cite a number of reasons as to why they do not want to work with us on tax reform, and I suspect that, to some degree, this false narrative about secrecy and closed doors on tax reform will be added to the list. But I will say it again: I am willing to work with anyone--Republican or Democrat--in this effort. If anyone doubts my sincerity, I think my record for bipartisanship and compromise should speak for itself.

Long story short, my goal on tax reform is to draft and pass a bill with the broadest possible support and input from all who are interested in helping put our economy on a sustained, higher growth path. To do that, I think we need a vigorous and open debate in the Senate, which, in my view, should include a full process in committee and regular order on the Senate floor. At the end of this process, no one should be able to credibly claim that he was unable to participate or that he did not have enough information about the bill.

So I hope this puts to rest any claims or suppositions that the tax reform process is going to be secretive in nature, because, if I have my way, this process is going to be open, fair, and joint. It will be open, and it will be bipartisan.

The goal of everyone in this body, with respect to tax reform, ought to be to help the American people by providing tax relief to American families, simplifying the tax system, improving our business tax system to allow American businesses to compete in the global economy, and creating stronger growth in the economy, wages, jobs, and opportunity.

I hope more of my colleagues will join me in supporting this important effort. It is important that we work our Tax Code out. It is a mess. It is not working. Too many people feel oppressed by it. A lot of our Members of the Senate do not feel very good about our current Tax Code. I do not feel good about it either. I think we need to get together as people who really want to help this country out and want to do the best for our constituents--whether they are Democrats, Republicans, Independents, or whatever--and do it the right way.

I just hope we can get enough interest on both sides of the floor to be able to do what really needs to be done in this very crucial area, and I intend to see that we do. As chairman of the tax-writing committee, we are going to do it. I just hope that I will have some support from the other side, as well, and that they will dig in and present their viewpoints and give us their ideas and help to mold and modify and work and improve and decide what is great in any tax approach that we take.

This is the greatest country in the world. We have the greatest economy in the world. We have the greatest opportunities in the world, but we can certainly hurt every one of those aspects of our lives if we do not handle the tax reform issue properly and if we do not handle taxes properly. I think it is important that we get together, work together, and get rid of some of the churlish stupidity that occasionally exists around this place and start doing what is best for the United States of America and best for all of our supporters, best for all of our constituents, and best for the world, really, because, if the United States is strong and powerful, the rest of the world will be better off.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a remarkable leader in the airport industry, Maureen Riley, who is retiring on June 30. Maureen is not only an accomplished businesswoman, but also a well- respected collaborator who had the vision and tenacity to get a $3.1 billion airport redevelopment program off the ground at Salt Lake City International Airport.

For more than 30 years, Maureen's professional life has been marked by many significant achievements in the airport industry. She has distinguished herself as a trusted consultant for numerous airports across the country. She has also served as deputy executive director at Orlando International Airport and, most recently, as executive director for the Salt Lake City Department of Airports.

Maureen believes in collaboration and sharing information to create better operating results. She has served in top leadership positions for the Airports Council International-North America, ACI-NA, a trade association of airports around the globe. She also served as a member of the ACI World Board of Directors for 4 years.

I first met Maureen after she took over the helm at Salt Lake City's Department of Airports, a position she has served in for more than a decade. During this time, Maureen guided the airport through the planning, financing, and now construction of the $3.1 billion airport redevelopment program.

Maureen is an exceptional manager who can be credited with gaining approval from the airlines to construct the new airport, which is paramount to the success of Utah's economy. She has the unique ability to bring people together and has been able to persuade the airlines, architects, financers, and construction teams to get the construction program off the ground. Maureen never backs away from a challenge and does what is necessary to keep a project on track and on budget. She is well respected by her colleagues and is known as being a tough negotiator. As one airline executive once told Maureen, ``It is hard to resist your reasonableness.''

Maureen is passionate about providing excellent customer service to airport passengers. She is committed to seeing that a project is done right the first time and is not afraid of saying no when a project or proposal does not make sense. Maureen is also committed to promoting women in the workforce and encourages the use of gender-neutral language in meetings by contractors, consultants, and staff.

Maureen has been the driving force to ensure the airport redevelopment program leaves a positive lasting impression on passengers and meets Salt Lake City's passenger growth well into the future.

Maureen Riley is leaving a lasting legacy as she steps down from her position with the Salt Lake City Department of Airports. I want to wish Maureen well in her retirement and send my best wishes to her and her family on this momentous occasion.

Mr. President, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Georgia.

Mr. President, for the last several weeks, I have been hearing quite a bit about process here in the Senate, particularly as it relates to the ongoing debate over the future of ObamaCare.

My friends on the other side of the aisle have, apparently, poll- tested the strategy of decrying the supposed secrecy surrounding the healthcare bill and the lack of regular order in its development. They have come to the floor, given interviews, and even hijacked committee meetings and hearings to express their supposedly righteous indignation about how Republicans are proceeding with the healthcare bill.

Of course, hearing Senate Democrats lecture about preserving the customs and traditions of the Senate is a bit ironic, but I will get back to that in a minute.

Last week, the Senate Finance Committee, which I chair, held a routine nominations markup to consider a slate of relatively uncontroversial nominees. On that same day, several of our colleagues and congressional staffers had been viciously attacked by an armed assailant, and a Member of the House of Representatives, of course, was in critical condition in the hospital.

I opened the meeting by respectfully asking my colleagues to allow the committee to use the markup as an opportunity to demonstrate unity in the face of a violent attack against Congress as an institution. Even then, my Democratic friends were, apparently, unable to pass up an opportunity to try to score partisan points and rack up video clips for social media by playing for the cameras as they lamented the committee's position in the healthcare debate.

Once again, the situation is dripping with irony. As I said, I will get to that in a minute.

If my Democratic colleagues are going to continue grandstanding over the healthcare debate, I have a few numbers I would like to cite for them.

Under ObamaCare, health insurance premiums in the State of Oregon have gone up by an average of 110 percent. In Michigan, they have gone up by 90 percent. In Florida, they have gone up by 84 percent. In Delaware, they have gone up by 108 percent. In Ohio, they have gone up by 86 percent. In Pennsylvania, they have gone up by 120 percent. In

Virginia, they have gone up by 77 percent. In Missouri, they have gone up by 145 percent.

I have not picked those States at random. Each of these States is currently represented by a Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. Of course, those trends extend well beyond the committee.

In Illinois, where the Senate minority whip resides, premiums have gone up by 108 percent.

In West Virginia and Wisconsin, both of which are also represented by Democratic Senators, premiums have gone up by 169 percent and 93 percent, respectively.

Montana is in a similar situation with premiums rising by 133 percent under ObamaCare.

Now, just so people do not go thinking that I am picking on the Democrats, I will note that, in Utah, health insurance premiums have gone up by an average of 101 percent.

In Wyoming, they have gone up by 107 percent, and, in Nebraska, they have gone up by 153 percent.

I can go on, but I think my point is clear: Health insurance premiums have skyrocketed all over the country by an average of 105 percent. I will repeat that. Under ObamaCare, the average health insurance premiums in the United States have seen triple-digit increases.

These are the fruits of the so-called Affordable Care Act. This is the burden that ObamaCare has placed on patients and families throughout our country, and people are feeling that burden whether they vote for Democrats or Republicans.

The only difference is that, for 7\1/2\ years, my Republican colleagues and I have been talking about the failures of ObamaCare, and for 7\1/2\ years, Senate Democrats have done virtually nothing to address these problems.

For 7\1/2\ years, Republicans like myself have pleaded with our Democratic colleagues and with the previous administration to work with us to address the failures of ObamaCare, and for 7\1/2\ years, it has been virtually impossible to get any Democrat in Washington to even acknowledge that there have been any problems with ObamaCare to begin with.

As the cost of healthcare in this country has skyrocketed out of control and the system created by the so-called Affordable Care Act has been collapsing under its own weight, Democrats in the Senate have been cherry-picking what few positive data points they can find and telling the American people that everything is fine and that ObamaCare is working.

Give me a break.

By no honest or reasonable measure is ObamaCare living up to the promises that were made at the time it was passed. As a result, the American people are saddled with a healthcare system that has been poorly designed and recklessly implemented.

Sure, it has made for partisan political theater for my colleagues to express shock and dismay at the current state of the healthcare debate. I am quite certain the strategy has poll-tested very well among the Democratic base, and the Senate minority leader clearly has an elaborate media campaign in mind.

Before they begin berating Republicans, I hope my Democratic colleagues were able to come up with something to tell their constituents whose healthcare costs have exploded as a result of ObamaCare. I have just mentioned a few things.

I hope they have answers for their voters for wondering why they only have one insurance option available to them, if they even have that, and, most importantly, I hope they have an explanation as to why they have been more or less silent while the law they supported--and still support--has wreaked havoc on our Nation's healthcare system.

Until they can answer those questions and provide those explanations, my good friends should spare anyone within earshot their lectures about what is currently happening in the Senate.

Finally, let me address the irony of my Democratic colleagues' process complaints. Some of them have selective memories when it comes to the history of ObamaCare. We have heard our colleagues talk about the number of committee hearings held in advance of ObamaCare's passing. What we don't hear is that there was not a single hearing held in the Senate on the ObamaCare reconciliation bill, which was an essential element that ensured passage of the Affordable Care Act in the House.

We have heard our colleagues talk about the markup process in committee and the number of amendments that were filed and accepted. What we don't hear about is the fact that the bills reported by the Finance and HELP Committees were tossed aside so the healthcare bill could be rewritten behind closed doors in Senator Reid's office, who was then the majority leader. The final product was only made public a few days before the Senate voted on it.

The truth is this: Senate committees--including the Finance Committee--have had literally dozens of hearings wherein the failings of ObamaCare--both the structure of the law and its implementation-- have been thoroughly examined. Between all the relevant committees, there have been at least 66 healthcare hearings in the Senate since ObamaCare became the healthcare law of the land. More than half of those were in the Finance Committee.

Committees have conducted countless oversight investigations and inquiries into these matters over the years. Few matters in the history of our country have received as much of the Senate's attention as ObamaCare has received. Very few laws have been examined as extensively as the so-called Affordable Care Act, which is anything but affordable. ObamaCare is the very definition of well-covered territory.

The majority leader has made clear that Members will have an opportunity to examine the forthcoming healthcare bill, and I expect that to be the case. He has always made assurances that when the bill is debated on the floor, we will have a fair and open amendment process, as required under the rules. There is really no reason for anyone to expect otherwise.

Let's recall that when ObamaCare was passed, the Democratic Speaker of the House, with a plain face, stated that Congress had to pass the bill in order for people to see what was in it.

Let's also recall that a couple of years later, one of the chief architects of the so-called Affordable Care Act bragged about the lack of transparency that surrounded its passage and said it was necessary to, in his words, take advantage of the ``stupidity of the American voter.''

Any argument that the process that resulted in ObamaCare was a picture of transparency and deliberation is so off base that it would almost be humorous if the issue was something less important.

As I said in committee last week, I want to welcome my Democratic colleagues to the healthcare debate. Ever since ObamaCare was signed into law, Democrats have more or less assumed that the debate was over and that all they had to do was keep telling the American people that everything was just fine, as if repetition alone would make it come true.

Everyone is going to see the bill, and everyone is going to get their chance to say their piece about it.

For now, I simply hope my Democratic colleagues will spare us their lectures and maybe look in the mirror when they are ranting about the degradation of the process and traditions of the Senate.

I have been around healthcare for most of my 41 years in the Senate. A lot of the healthcare bills that work in this country have my name on them. This is one of the worst bills I have ever seen in all my time in the U.S. Senate. If I were a Democrat, I would not be claiming success because of that bill. It is a pathetic piece of legislation that is going to put this country down and make healthcare not available for everybody but make everybody have the worst healthcare system they could possibly have.

Now, it is one thing to cherry-pick a few things that the healthcare bill can help with, but it would be a totally stupid bill if it didn't have something in it that was good. If you look at the overall bill and you look at the overall cost to America and you look at what it is doing to America and you look at how the medical profession is starting to really wonder if they want to be in the profession anymore--you can't do all of this and look at all of these things

without asking, What in the heck have we done here? Are we so stupid that we believe the Federal Government is the last answer to everything?

Well, we will see, because I think some people are that stupid and, frankly--I don't want to name anybody, and I hope I am wrong, but I have been here 41 years and I have seen a lot of stupidity around this place and you have to really go a long way to find anything worse than the so-called ``affordable'' healthcare bill.

This is a pathetic piece of legislation that is going to wreck our country if we don't, as Democrats and Republicans, get together and reform it. This is an opportunity for my friends on the Democratic side as well as the Republican side to see what we can do about this and to get this thing straightened out.

This is the greatest country in the world. There is nobody in this country who should go without basic healthcare. When we have terrible cases like my distinguished friend and colleague from Connecticut has mentioned, yes, we want to make sure people who suffer like that are taken care of, and there are some on our side who could be a little more humane and compassionate, but there are some on the other side, too, who could be a little more humane and compassionate and maybe a little more honest when they talk about this bill.

We are a long way from solving the healthcare problems in this country, and if we go down this road any further, we will be an even longer way from solving these problems, and we may very well bankrupt the American economy, which will then really show us how bad we are with regard to healthcare in this country.

My friends on the other side never ask, Where is the money going to come from? Who is going to pay for this? Who is going to help us to get through this? We are just going to throw money at it, and we are $100 trillion in unfunded liability in this country and $20 trillion in national debt. It is astounding. Who is going to pay for it, especially when it doesn't work any better than that.

I spent some of my prior life in medical malpractice work defending doctors and hospitals and healthcare providers, and some of that was really astounding to me because some of those cases were brought just to get the defense costs, which were always pretty high because those cases were very expensive to defend. Most of them were not good cases, but once they got in court, if they had any kind of basis at all--but even if they were dismissed, it still cost a lot of money.

All I can say is, there is a lot wrong with our healthcare system in this country, but it is still the best healthcare system in the world, and it is about to go down if we don't get together as Republicans and Democrats and straighten this mess out. We can make our political points all we want to. Both sides have been right in some cases and both sides have been wrong on some things, but we are wrong if we think that the current system is going to work, and we ought to be working together as Republicans and Democrats or Democrats and Republicans to straighten it out.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to submit to the Record of the U.S. Senate a statement to celebrate the career of public service of Dr. M. Lynne Corn, offer my heartfelt congratulations on the occasion of her retirement from the Congressional Research Service, and wish her happiness and prosperity in the next chapter of her life.

For over three decades, Dr. Corn dedicated the better portion of her professional career to serving the Congress of the United States from within the halls of the Library of Congress. As a specialist in the study of natural resources, Federal land management, earth sciences, agriculture, and endangered, species recovery, she has guided and informed the decisionmaking of countless Members of Congress and Senators, and their staffs, on the major, related issues of her time.

As a Senator representing the State of Utah and as a Westerner, her policy acumen has on countless occasions aided legislative efforts that have had a substantial impact on my constituency. She has served as an invaluable guide in the drafting of legislation and helped inform some of the most difficult votes I have cast, and I can say without question that she has helped guide the process of passing some of the most difficult pieces of legislation into law. As well, as some of my most senior staff can attest, she leaves her position with a reputation of being among the most informed and insightful research and policy advisors on Capitol Hill.

Let the record show that Dr. Corn began working at the Congressional Research Service in 1985, after having served for almost 6 years in a congressional office, including as an AAAS--American Association for the Advancement of Science--congressional science fellow from 1979 to 1980. Dr. Corn came to Capitol Hill after sharing her enthusiasm for the ecology of all types of animals and plants with students at Middlebury College, VT; Stockton State College, NJ; and Arizona State University.

Dr. Corn adeptly transitioned from pedagogy to informing congressional deliberations on policy development, especially related to the Endangered Species Act. Although her doctoral research at Harvard University was related to a tropical ant species, Congress put her biological expertise to work researching and writing on the Pacific Northwest's spotted owl and the species and habitat of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Dr. Corn also became an expert in various conservation related trust funds, as well as the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, which is critical to the rural inhabitants of my home state of Utah. Dr. Corn excelled in the use of visual aids, such as maps, to explain complex issues to congressional audiences.

But the work of a congressional researcher can sometimes be more light-hearted. I will share one incident, as it has been told to me, when it was the staff that provided the visual aid. Dr. Corn was asked to come to a Senate office to identify a dead snake coiled in a coffee tin. Upon examination, she identified the snake, a corn snake, just as the Senator walked into the office. As a country-raised man, he knew well the species that was native to his region, and a memorable conversation with the Senator followed, about the quiddities of that particular species, which both the Senator and Dr. Corn

had caught on multiple occasions. When I learned of this incident, it struck me uniquely because, as it turns out, this incident occurred in the office of a former President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Senator Robert Byrd. I can say that those are the types of moments that make our jobs worthwhile.

I will conclude with what is perhaps most important: Dr. Corn has served her country and worked with her colleagues in Congress with a unique charisma that has so often breathed life into the absolutely critical, but sometimes tedious task of researching policy decisions and legislation. By way of an example, there is something revealing about the word ``critters''--which she so often used--that reflects not only the authentic passion that she held for her subject area, but also her flare for artfully transforming arcane concepts into digestible and actionable information, which is a distinguished trait that Members of Congress so appreciably rely upon.

Again I reiterate my gratitude for Dr. Corn's service, and I wish her a blessed and relaxing future, with her dearly beloved dogs, as she departs from her career in the Congressional Research Service.

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

Mr. President, I rise to express my deepest sympathy for the victims of this morning's shooting, including for my good friend, Representative Steve Scalise. I pray that he, the congressional staff, and police officers who were injured in this horrific event can recover quickly.

Today is not a day to reflect on our differences but on our common commitment to upholding the Constitution and doing the work of the American people. This Chamber is often divided on matters of policy, but in the face of tragedy, we are united as one. Today, we are together, and together we recognize the local law enforcement officials who responded quickly and professionally to this morning's attack.

Each and every day, police officers across this great Nation risk their own well-being to ensure the safety of others, and they do so with little fanfare or recognition. In light of today's events, I recognize, in particular, the special sacrifice of our U.S. Capitol police officers--the selfless men and women--who, each and every day, assume significant risk to keep all of us safe.

I shudder to think of what may have happened this morning had it not been for the quick action taken by Representative Scalise's security detail. These courageous special agents returned fire to apprehend the perpetrator of this senseless and appalling act of violence. Through their heroic actions, they prevented a massacre and saved the lives of dozens of elected Members of Congress and congressional staff. Today I wish to pay special tribute to these humble heroes.

As far as I am concerned, our Capitol Police officers are the finest professionals this Nation has to offer. We wave to them each morning as we walk in to work, we say goodbye to them each night as we leave, and we interact with them each day. Yet how often do we thank them for their service? How often do we reflect on the weight of their work? How often do we recognize them for their sacrifices? In my opinion, not often enough. Because these police officers are such a common presence here on Capitol Hill, I worry that all too often we take them for granted, but we should never take for granted the men and women who would willingly give up their lives to protect ours.

This morning's attack reminds us all of the thin line between peace and violence, and our Capitol police officers are the first to respond when that line is crossed. Today and every day, these selfless men and women deserve our heartfelt thanks and appreciation.

In paying tribute to our Capitol Police, I would be remiss if I were to fail to recognize the 23 members of my own

security detail who work around the clock to keep Elaine and me safe. These men and women are like family to me. Over the past 2\1/2\ years, I have built a special bond with each of them.

Today I would like to recognize each of them individually:

Supervisory Special Agent David Rib, who leads the detail with assistance from team leaders Jason Marcello and Shane Powell; in addition, Special Agents Eric Boggs, John Britto, Jacqueline French, Eric Holzer, Eric Love, Paul Martin, Ronald Munar, Benjamin Odell, Richard Philius, Luis Pimentel, Ryan Rayball, Austin Reinshuttle, Henry Smith, John Whittle, Micah Harrison, Muhammed Khan, Gideon Maran, Arnold Pierre, Robert Schultz, and Charles Snead.

In all of my years of public service, these are among the most honorable men and women I have ever worked with. ``Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.''

The fact that these special agents are willing to put their lives on the line to protect all of us speaks to their selflessness, their bravery, and their love of this institution and of country. Elaine and I love each of these special agents deeply, and we love their families too.

In these photos, you can see one of the team leaders, Jason, hard at work. Jason hates this photo, which is why I blew it up for national TV. The other photo is of the trip I took to all five of Utah's national parks last year. During this trip, my security detail was with me every step of the way. These men and women never leave my side.

Today I wish to thank them with all of my heart for their service and their sacrifice. These are really great people, and we have enjoyed being together. At least, I have enjoyed being with them. I will put it that way.

As Members of Congress, we stand united in the aftermath of today's attack. Thanks to our brave Capitol Police officers, we also stand protected from those who would do us harm. Because of them, we can confidently carry on the work of the American people.

These are really great human beings--men and women--who literally sacrifice a lot to serve us, back us up, strengthen us, and help us in times of need. They are people whom I really, really admire. All I can say is, I admire those who stood up this morning for Congressman Scalise and the others who were there and especially for those who were wounded.

This is a wonderful institution, and we have wonderful people working with us--heroic people, people who care for this body, people who care for our country, people who care for us. I think we ought to all thank God every day that we have these good people around us and that we ought to all take the time to be kind to them, to show them how much we care, and to show them the friendship we truly have for them. I am grateful that I know a number of these people--quite a number. I am grateful for them and for what they do for all of us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to William Barclay Bates, a father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and veteran of the Second World War. Bill, as he liked to be called, passed away last December in Jackson, WY, at the age of 91. Next week, his family will gather at Wyoming Veterans Cemetery in Casper, WY, to commemorate his life and honor his contributions to our country. I wish to add a few words to what they will say about this brave and stalwart man.

Bill's life story typifies many of his generation. He was born on December 14, 1924, in Los Angeles, CA, to Jeffrey Otto and Clara Virginia Bates. His father, Jeff, served in the American Expeditionary Force in Russia during

World War I. His mother, Clara, was a telephone operator. When Bill was 5, he moved with his family to McAlester, OK. This was during the middle of the Great Depression, and times were tough. Bill's father owned a radio repair shop and later ran a roller rink to provide for the family. As Bill said some years later, ``We never had much money, but neither did anyone else. We never missed any meals, but we ate a lot of beans, and a soup bone on Sunday was a real treat.''

In September 1941, at the age of 17, Bill enlisted in the Army. It was 3 months before Pearl Harbor. After basic training, Bill applied for and was accepted to airplane gunnery school. Following completion of his training, a request came in for a gunner for a group headed to Africa. As Bill later told the story, his captain ``flipped a coin between two candidates, me and Bill Haygood. I lost and Bill Haygood went to North Africa and was killed within six weeks. A flip of a coin decided that I would live through the war.''

Instead of going to Africa, Bill was sent to Europe with the Eighth Air Force, 446th Bomb Group. The 446th Bomb Group, which came to be known as the Bungay Buckaroos, led the Eighth Air Force on the first heavy bomber mission on D-Day, June 6, 1944, and later supported Allied ground forces as they moved east toward Berlin through France and Germany.

Bill served as a waist gunner and flew missions in B-17s and B-24s. In total, he flew 33 combat missions. This was very dangerous work. Of his original flight crew, only Bill and one other were still alive at the war's end. For his service, he received the Air Medal with three bronze oakleaf clusters and the Distinguished Flying Cross.

After receiving an honorable discharge as a staff sergeant in 1945, Bill returned to Oklahoma, studied business on the G.I. bill, and became a certified public accountant.

In 1951, he married Dorothy Lee Hartman in Fort Sill, OK. Like Bill, Dorothy grew up in Oklahoma during the Great Depression. She was working as a nurse in Tulsa when they met. A year after Bill and Dorothy married, their son Bruce was born. Seven years later, another son, Jeff, was born.

In 1962, Bill and his family moved from Tulsa to Casper, WY, so Bill and Dorothy could pursue their love of the outdoors. During this time, Bill continued his work as an accountant, serving in the Casper Chamber of Commerce and as president of the Wyoming chapter of certified public accountants. He grew his firm, Bates and Hocker, into the largest accounting firm in the State of Wyoming.

After Bill retired, he and Dorothy moved to California, Arizona, and then Utah, returning to Casper every summer to hunt, fish, and enjoy Wyoming's cool summers. Bill became an avid safari hunter, traveling to Africa 15 times to hunt game.

After Dorothy passed away in 2012, Bill returned to Wyoming, where he spent many happy days in Jackson near his son Jeff and daughter-in-law Vickie. He passed away on December 5 of last year, surrounded by family and loved ones. He is survived by his sons Bruce and Jeff, daughters- in-law Debbie and Vickie, six grandchildren, and four great- grandchildren.

I said at the outset that Bill's life story typifies many of his generation. He grew up during the Great Depression, when times were hard and money scarce. He served with valor in World War II, where he risked his life many times for his country and fellow servicemen. After the war, he went to college, got married, and started a family. He built a business and served in the community. He was a faithful husband and a steadfast provider for his children.

Men like Bill Bates are the reason America and her allies prevailed in World War II. Men like Bill Bates are the reason we enjoy such a prosperous and free country today. I am grateful for this opportunity to add a few words in Bill's memory and wish his family the very best.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the continuing effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare. This effort has essentially been going on since the day the bill was signed into law. I think most of us on the Republican side recognize the overwhelming consensus surrounding the

failures of ObamaCare as a major reason we currently find ourselves in the majority.

As you know, the House passed the American Health Care Act, a bill that would repeal and replace ObamaCare, earlier this month. This is an important step in the process. Later today, we expect to hear from the Congressional Budget Office about the House bill. The CBO score will lay down an important marker for the repeal and replace efforts in the Senate. It will allow us to work to ensure that the House bill fits into the constraints of the reconciliation rules in the Senate, while we continue to strive toward our own policy goals to implement patient- centered healthcare and healthcare reforms that address cost and promote choice and competition.

I am very interested in what they say. These changes are more important than ever. Just today, we received a report from HHS that, from the time ObamaCare took effect through 2017, there was an average premium increase of 105 percent across the 39 States using healthcare.gov. This is just one snapshot of the runaway costs of ObamaCare, and it is just one of many examples indicating why we need to act as quickly as possible to repeal and replace the misguided law.

As the Senate continues to discuss the policy matters related to this effort, we will need to confront a number of different issues as we work to provide enduring reforms for our beleaguered healthcare system. As chairman of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over most of the salient issues under discussion, I want to make my views on these matters very clear.

First, it is my view that all of the ObamaCare taxes need to go. We should not be treating the ObamaCare taxes as a smorgasbord, picking and choosing which ones to keep and which to discard. I don't think there is a single tax increase in ObamaCare that has enjoyed support on this Republican side.

When all is said and done, the tax provisions of the Affordable Care Act represented a trillion-dollar hit on the economy in just the first 10 years. That is nearly 1 percent of the projected gross domestic product over the same period. In my view, it would be inappropriate, after spending the better part of a decade railing against ObamaCare's burdensome job-killing taxes, for us to then turn around and say that some of them are fine so long as they are being used to fund Republican healthcare proposals.

It is very simple. We need to repeal all of the ObamaCare taxes--the medical device tax, the health insurance tax, the so-called Cadillac tax, the taxes on healthcare savings and pharmaceuticals, and several others. They all have to go.

Second, we need to fully repeal the individual mandate. There has been some talk about keeping the mandate around temporarily, if nothing else, to help shore up the new system. But as I said with the ObamaCare taxes, Republicans have spent years condemning the individual mandate as an unconstitutional assault on individual liberty. We have also argued that it was ineffective and that it has failed to draw enough younger and healthier consumers into the insurance market in order to offset the cost of ObamaCare's draconian market reform mandates.

I don't see how we can now turn on a dime and say that the individual mandate is now somehow acceptable because we are using it to prop up a system that Republicans have designed. Like the taxes, the individual mandate, in my view, needs to be repealed. Lastly, we need to resist any temptation to alter the tax treatment of employer-provided health insurance as part of this particular exercise. Don't get me wrong. There have been a number of health reform proposals over the years that have dealt with this issue, including a legislative framework that I drafted, along with two of my colleagues. However, given the limitations we face in this current exercise and the fact that we are not starting from a blank slate but rather attempting to repeal a law that has been implemented for a number of years, we should be wary of the impact of pulling employer-sponsored insurance into this current debate.

The purpose of this budget reconciliation exercise to repeal and replace ObamaCare is to address costs in the individual markets. I believe it is important that everyone, whether they are Members of Congress, stakeholders in the business community, or living elsewhere in the country, manage their expectations about the possible outcomes of this process given the limitations we are facing.

While the constraints inherent to the budget reconciliation process may be inconvenient at the specific moment, they serve a number of important purposes. Under this process, the Senate will need to reduce the deficit by at least as much as the House bill. There is no way around that. The process for determining what provisions of the House bill will need to be changed is still ongoing. Of course, we will have to take a good long look at the numbers we get from CBO later today.

Not only do we need to take into account the CBO numbers and the budget rules, but we also need to consider what the best policy is, and, at the end of the day, what approach is doable. We can do a lot in this exercise, but we should not make this the be-all and end-all of our healthcare reform effort.

As I said before, everyone should be managing their expectations at this point. While we can and should be ambitious in our efforts, we need to be realistic about the limitations that exist and be willing to practice the art of the doable, to compromise, and to really recognize what issues will need to be set aside for another day.

None of this is going to be easy, but I believe we are up to the challenge. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues and to finding solutions that will help us keep the promises we made to our constituents.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss international data privacy. This is a critically important issue that has become all the more important over the years as we become more sophisticated. It has become all the more pressing in recent months as a result of court decisions impacting law enforcement's ability to access electronic communications overseas.

I don't think it would surprise anyone to hear me say that our privacy laws have not kept pace with technological developments. The primary statute that governs law enforcement's ability to access electronic data, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or ECPA, was enacted over 30 years ago--long before most people had even heard of email or the internet. ECPA was drafted in a world in which electronic data was stored on personal computers or on servers located in offices or homes. It presumes a world where data is in one location and where in order to access data, a person simply goes to the relevant location and retrieves it. But that is not the world we live in, at least not today. Nowadays, much of our data is stored not on home or office computers but in the cloud, a network of remote servers spread throughout the world that allows us to access data from literally anywhere.

The rise of cloud and remote network computing has transformed the way companies and individuals store data. No longer is data stored on sites or in one discrete location; rather, data pertaining to a single individual or even to a single document may be stored at multiple sites, spread across countries or even across continents. This has created all sorts of complications for our laws.

ECPA requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant before it can access many types of electronic communications. It also prohibits disclosure to foreign entities. Warrants, however, traditionally have stopped at the water's edge. A judge here in Washington can issue a warrant authorizing law enforcement to search an office here in Washington but cannot issue a warrant for searches in London or Paris.

So what is law enforcement to do in a world of cloud computing where pieces of the same electronic document might be stored in Washington, London, and Paris?

One possibility is to say that as long as the data is accessible from the United States--that is, so long as you can retrieve it by logging on to a computer somewhere in the United States--that is all that matters; law enforcement can order its disclosure.

This sort of maximalist approach, however, brings with it a whole host of problems. To begin with, it pays scant attention to the laws and interests of other countries, including our closest allies. Other countries, it turns out, have data privacy laws of their own, and just like ECPA, sometimes these laws prohibit disclosure to foreign entities, including foreign law enforcement. So to say U.S. law enforcement can compel disclosure and data stored anywhere in the world so long as that data is accessible in the United States is really to say that U.S. law enforcement can override the laws of other countries.

More particularly, it is to say U.S. law enforcement can order individuals or companies that store data overseas to violate the privacy laws of other countries. This is unfair to service providers who may find themselves on the wrong side of the law no matter which side they choose and does little to help international relations. It also undermines trust, drives customers to foreign competitors, and undermines the privacy of U.S. citizens by emboldening other countries with less robust privacy regimes that similarly seek unlimited extra territorial access to data.

Another possibility is to say that if the data is stored in the United States, then law enforcement may access it, but if it is stored outside our borders, it is off limits.

This is essentially the current state of affairs following a decision last summer by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that ECPA warrants do not reach data stored abroad. Under the Second Circuit's decision, U.S. law enforcement can use compulsory process to access data stored in the United States but must work through diplomatic channels to obtain data stored overseas.

This sort of domestic storage regime has the benefit of avoiding the conflict-of-laws problems I have just described, but it also has very real drawbacks.

To begin with, it impedes law enforcement's ability to solve and prevent crime in cases where the needed data is stored outside the United States, even when the creator of the data is an American, the service provider storing the data is an American, and the crime being investigated took place here in the United States. The mere happenstance that the data is stored beyond our borders, even though it may constantly or instantly be accessed from within our borders, places it off limits. Service providers' varying business practices in moving and holding data determine whether an investigation moves forward.

This sort of domestic storage regime also forces U.S. law enforcement to work through diplomatic channels, which sometimes are slow and sometimes very cumbersome and in many instances less protective of privacy than U.S. criminal process, which requires a warrant from a neutral magistrate and a finding of probable cause.

The upshot is that neither of these regimes is satisfactory. A maximalist regime that extends U.S. law enforcement jurisdiction worldwide creates serious conflict-of-law problems and places U.S. service providers in impossible positions. A more modest domestic storage regime, by contrast, hinders law enforcement's ability to solve crime and protect us from harm, based solely on where a particular document or piece of data happens to be stored at a given moment in time.

What we need is a sensible regime with clear rules that determine access based on factors that actually matter to the person whose data is being sought. Privacy laws are meant to protect people, not abstractions. We ought not get bogged down with mindless formalism. Most people could care less whether their data is stored at site A or site B or country A or country B as long as it is easily accessible and has robust privacy protections.

At the same time, we need to take proper account of the laws and interests of other countries, especially our allies. We ought to avoid, where possible, trampling on other nations' sovereignty or ignoring their own citizens' legitimate claims to privacy, whether here in the United States or abroad.

For this reason, I believe the right approach to international data privacy is to ground the analysis on the location of the person whose data is being sought. It is, after all, the person who has rights and the person whose interests are devalued when data is obtained without proper process.

Accordingly, I have proposed legislation called the International Communications Privacy Act, or ICPA, that sets clear rules for when and how U.S. law enforcement can access electronic data based on the location and nationality of the person whose data is being sought. I intend to introduce an updated version of this legislation in the very near future.

Here is what the updated version of this legislation will say: If a person is a U.S. national or located in the United States, then law enforcement may compel disclosure no matter where the data is stored, provided the data is accessible from a U.S. computer and law enforcement uses proper criminal process. If a person is not a U.S. national, however, and is not located in the United States, then different rules apply.

These rules are founded on three principles: respect, comity, and reciprocity.

First, respect. If U.S. law enforcement wishes to access data belonging to a non-U.S. national located outside the United States, then law enforcement must notify the person's country of citizenship and provide that country an opportunity to object to the disclosure. This protocol shows respect to the other country and gives the country an opportunity to assert the privacy rights of its citizen.

Second, comity. If, after receiving notice, the other country lodges an objection, the U.S. court undertakes a comity analysis to determine whose interests should rightfully prevail--the U.S. interests in obtaining the data or the foreign interests in preventing disclosure. As part of this analysis, the court can consider such factors as the location of the crime, the seriousness of the crime, the importance of the data to the investigation, and the possibility of accessing the data through other means. This analysis prevents an obstinate foreign power from impeding investigations without good reason or where the U.S. interests in disclosure are particularly strong.

Third, reciprocity. In order to receive notice and an opportunity to object, the other country must provide reciprocal notice-and-objection rights to the United States. The country must also provide robust privacy protections within its own borders and satisfy international human rights standards. These requirements ensure that the U.S. provides its own citizens an equal or greater level of protection against foreign requests for data. They also offer incentives to foreign governments to properly safeguard the data of U.S. citizens within their jurisdiction.

Tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism will hold a hearing on law enforcement access to data stored abroad. That hearing, I hope, will elucidate many of the principles I just described.

Soon after the hearing, I will reintroduce the International Communications Privacy Act. The bill as reintroduced will incorporate feedback from law enforcement and privacy groups. I intend to push very hard for this legislation and will seek every opportunity to do so. I want my colleagues to know that I will be pursuing any and all legislative vehicles to get it across the finish line.

In the words of Utah businessman Jeff Hadfield, writing in the Deseret News, ``It's imperative that Congress quickly address the ambiguity within our current law. As every company becomes a software company, we need legislation that supports our companies' ability to store data overseas, protects our individual privacy rights, and helps U.S. law enforcement do its important job.'' I could not agree more.

The International Communications Privacy Act provides critical guidance to law enforcement, while respecting the laws and interests of our allies. It brings a set of simple, straightforward rules to a chaotic area of law and creates an example for other countries to follow. It is a balanced approach and a smart approach, and it deserves this body's full support.

Mr. President, on another matter, I wish to register my strong support today for the confirmation of John Sullivan to be Deputy Secretary of State.

The nomination of John Sullivan is another example of President Trump choosing the best and brightest for national security positions in his administration.

I have known John Sullivan since he was confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Commerce during the George Bush administration. He excelled in this position, which bears many similarities to the Deputy Secretary of State role to which he has been nominated.

For example, as Deputy Secretary of Commerce, John was responsible for the day-to-day operations and management of a major Federal agency. As Deputy Secretary of State, he will assume the same managerial duties, but for a different Federal agency.

In facilitating international trade agreements at the Department of Commerce, John Sullivan also honed his negotiating abilities, developing a diplomatic skill set that will be critical in his new role at the State Department.

As the chairman of the Finance Committee, I closely followed John's tenure at Commerce. I was consistently impressed with his ability to promote American interests abroad while maintaining constructive relations with our trading partners. I have no doubt that he will continue to serve our Nation well as the Deputy Secretary of State.

In addition to his management expertise, John Sullivan is a practicing attorney with the law firm of Mayer Brown LLP. There, too, he has developed a reputation for excellence, especially in the area of national security law.

In John Sullivan we have a proven manager, a seasoned diplomat, and a sharp policy mind who will bring strong leadership to the State Department. In John Sullivan, President Trump and Secretary Tillerson have made an inspired choice.

Secretary Tillerson is doing a tremendous job at the State Department. With John Sullivan as his Deputy, even more can be accomplished.

In addition, I would like to thank John Sullivan for his willingness to serve. Of course, I would be remiss if I did not also thank his family--especially his wife of 29 years, Grace Rodriguez, who has provided invaluable support to John throughout his public service. It is unlikely John would be here today without their consent and their constant support.

Few have the skills that John Sullivan possesses. Fewer still possess the patriotism, professionalism, and integrity he has displayed over a distinguished career. He is the best man for the job, which is why I urge my colleagues to confirm him without delay.

I appreciate this opportunity to make these points on the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, peace and order are the indispensable pillars of a stable society. They grant us security in our daily lives, trust in our communities, and faith in our democratic institutions. Where peace and order reign, so too does society thrive and prosper, but none of that is possible without our Nation's 700,000 men and women in blue.

Each and every day, these brave sons and daughters--brave souls-- stand up for all of us. Each and every day, they stand guard, ready to do justice or risk harm--all on our behalf. So today I rise on behalf of a grateful Nation to recognize them. Their performance is exceptional, and their sacrifice is immense.

Far too often, we take our police officers for granted. Far too often, we forget how hard it is to win and how easy it is to lose the peace and order that we all enjoy, but our police officers never forget. They are always at the ready. As we honor them this week, we remember that the question is not ``What causes violence or what causes crime?'' but rather, ``What causes peace, and what causes security?''

The answer is our men and women in blue.

In celebration of our National Police Week, I wish to express my profound appreciation for our Nation's law enforcement community--the courageous men and women who each day put the safety of others before their own. Their success is impossible to fully measure. It cannot be counted in crime statistics or etched into medals. It can only be seen in the peace and order that their sacrifice makes possible.

Therefore, allow me for a moment to speak directly to our police officers.

Trust that your selflessness does not go unseen, that your service does not go unfelt, and that your sacrifice does not go unknown. We appreciate you, we support you, and we honor you. Law enforcement is among the noblest of professions. You are the brave guardians among us who fight for peace and protect the vulnerable from harm. On behalf of a grateful nation, I wish to thank you and your families for bearing the burden, shouldering the sacrifice, and making us all proud.

Let it be known that I proudly back the blue.

This is a critical moment to show the police our support. We live in a time when law enforcement officials are not only underappreciated but often maligned and, quite often, openly disparaged. Day in and day out, they suffer criticism and pressure. This week we let them know of our respect and admiration.

Today, I wish to express my gratitude for our men and women in uniform by sharing stories of their heroism. You see, we hear all about police mistakes, and we hear wall-to-wall coverage of the controversies, but we seldom hear about the acts of bravery and professionalism that distinguish our police officers as the finest in the world. In particular, I would like to relate the account of Utahns Bre and Kayli Lasley, two sisters whose lives were saved by an on-duty police officer.

In September 2015, a man armed with a knife climbed through a bedroom window in Bre and Kayli's Salt Lake City apartment. Once inside, he brutally beat both sisters before pulling out a knife and repeatedly stabbing Bre. Just as the attacker raised his knife to Bre's throat, Salt Lake City police officer Ben Hone charged into the room. He told the intruder to drop his knife.

In that critical moment, with lives literally hanging in the balance, Bre remembers:

That's when I saw the officer, and he was our angel . . . I

looked at the officer in his eyes, and he was so professional

and calm.

When the attacker refused to surrender his weapon, Officer Hone raised his service pistol and fired, killing the armed intruder and saving Bre's life. In that moment, Officer Hone was truly Bre's guardian angel.

She remembers:

When [we] made eye contact, I knew I was safe. It's a

miracle that he had so much composure and was able to take

that shot.

In recognition of his heroism, Officer Ben Hone was honored by the National Associations of Chiefs of Police and the American Police Hall of Fame as the 2015 Law Enforcement Officer of the Year. I think it was an honor richly deserved.

Officer Hone survived that day. For that, we give thanks, but the sad reality is that many lose their lives in the line of duty. So today I wish to honor those men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice and paid the highest price that society can ask. Our debt to them will not--indeed, cannot--be repaid.

Among the fallen is Utah Highway Patrol Trooper Eric Ellsworth, who died only a few days after being struck by a car while on duty in Box Elder County. We also mourn the passing of West Valley City police officer Cody Brotherson and Greater Salt Lake Unified Police Department officer Douglas Barney, who were both killed in the line of duty this past year in Utah.

I express my deepest condolences to the families and friends of these brave heroes and the countless others who have experienced similar tragedies.

Although we cannot bring these officers back, we can honor their legacies by committing ourselves to supporting their brothers and sisters in uniform. To that end, I have introduced and cosponsored a number of bills this Congress that are meant to assist law enforcement as they serve our communities. These bills include the Rapid

DNA Act, the Probation Officer Protection Act, and the Child Protection Improvements Act. Just yesterday, I joined Senator Coons in introducing the U.S. Marshals Service Hiring Improvement Act, which was named in honor of U.S. Marshals Service deputy Patrick T. Carothers, who was a 26-year veteran of the U.S. Marshals Service who died in the line of duty in Georgia in November 2016.

Last week, I was grateful to see the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably report my bipartisan bill--the Rapid DNA Act of 2017. This critical legislation, which has garnered support from the National Association of Police Organizations, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the National District Attorneys Association, updates the law and leverages advancements in rapid DNA technology to expedite analysis in the FBI's Combined DNA Index System. If enacted, this commonsense proposal will enable law enforcement to analyze DNA in record time, reducing backlogs in rape kits and keeping violent criminals off of our streets. By facilitating the use of rapid DNA technology, this bill will also help to exonerate those wrongly accused of crime.

The Rapid DNA Act has received strong support from U.S. Attorney General Sessions. During his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Sessions said:

Rapid DNA analysis is a hugely important issue for the

whole American criminal justice system. It presents

tremendous opportunities to solve crimes in an effective way

and produce justice because it's the kind of thing that you

can't fake or mislead, so I am very strongly in favor of

it.''

In remarks before the Senate Judiciary Committee, former FBI Director James Comey said that the Rapid DNA Act ``will help us change the world in a very exciting way,'' and it ``will materially advance the safety of the people of the United States.''

Each time I talk to a police officer, I always hear nearly the same thing. They have no need for fanfare or fame. All they need is the public's support and the tools necessary to do the job. In commemoration of National Police Week, let's make sure to give them both. I encourage my colleagues to join me in passing these bills and in showing our heroes in blue the gratitude and admiration they deserve.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, who is an excellent person to work with. We enjoy each other and enjoy working together. We are getting a lot done, and I appreciate his kind remarks here today.

I rise today in support of the nomination of Robert Lighthizer to be the next United States Trade Representative. Mr. Lighthizer was reported out of the Finance Committee unanimously--Democrats and Republicans--and I hope he receives a similarly strong bipartisan vote here on the floor.

By statute, Congress has designated the USTR as the primary official for developing and coordinating U.S. trade policy, advising the President on trade, and leading international trade negotiations. The USTR must also report directly to and consult closely with Congress on a wide range of issues affecting international commerce. The USTR is Congress's first and most important point of contact when it comes to trade policy. Therefore, in order for Congress to have an effective voice in shaping our Nation's trade agenda, we need to have a fully staffed and functional USTR office.

For that reason, I have been very critical of the pointless and unprecedented delays we have faced in filling this vacancy, in filling this position, due to some unreasonable demands from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle. This delay has served only to weaken Congress's position in trade policy and has hampered our ability to provide the new administration with substantive input. Despite this ill-advised delay, I am pleased that Mr. Lighthizer's nomination has finally been brought to the floor, and I thank my colleagues for that.

Mr. Lighthizer's years of experience in public service, including as staff director for the Senate Finance Committee, as Deputy USTR during the Reagan administration, and in private practice, make him extremely well qualified to serve as our Nation's representative. Mr. Lighthizer's knowledge and experience will be vital to his service in this position and vital to our country.

Put simply, growing our economy and creating better paying jobs for American workers require increased U.S. trade. Toward that end, I have spoken to Mr. Lighthizer about the importance of removing trade barriers for American businesses, workers, consumers, and, where those barriers have already been removed, maintaining the status quo.

I know there is quite a bit of discussion going around about potential changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement. As I told Mr. Lighthizer, there are definitely opportunities to update and improve NAFTA, but it is important that the administration follow the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath: First do no harm.

Mr. Lighthizer and I have also discussed the importance of protecting U.S. intellectual property rights around the globe through strong enforcement and better rules in trade agreements. I believe he recognizes the importance of this priority, and I will work to ensure that this issue plays a prominent role in our future trade negotiations.

I have also made clear to Mr. Lighthizer that I believe consultation on trade policy between Congress and the administration is essential, particularly if our agreements are going to adhere to the standards Congress put forward in the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, the statute that included the most recent reauthorization of trade promotion authority.

On this key point, I believe Mr. Lighthizer and I are in agreement. As U.S. Trade Representative, Mr. Lighthizer will have the task of holding our trading partners accountable, ensuring that Americans don't pay more for the products their families need and helping American businesses and workers sell more of their goods and services around the globe.

This is not an easy job, but I am confident that Mr. Lighthizer is up to the task. As chairman of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over our Nation's trade policy, I am committed to working with him to ensure that we advance a trade agenda that will grow our economy, create more jobs, and expand market access around the globe for America's farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers.

Mr. President, I suggest we vote on Mr. Lighthizer.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, a month ago, I spoke in strong support of Dr. Heather Wilson to be the 24th Secretary of the Air Force. I am pleased that it appears that her nomination will be confirmed today.

In the many years I have known Dr. Wilson, I have always been impressed by her intellect and especially by her leadership skills. Her qualifications and character are beyond dispute. Throughout her life, she has used her many talents not for personal gain or self- aggrandizement but for the public good.

Dr. Wilson was one of the first female graduates of the Air Force Academy,

which is a pretty impressive accomplishment unto itself, but she set an even higher standard when she earned a Rhodes scholarship to study at Oxford University.

Upon being awarded her Ph.D., she went to work for the National Security Council and then ran for Congress. I got to know Dr. Wilson through her insightful work on the House Intelligence and Armed Services Committees. Make no mistake--Dr. Wilson made a difference during her service in the House. As a well-respected member of the Intelligence Committee, she built a reputation as a no-nonsense legislator who was deeply committed to upholding our national security. In all things, she proved herself to be exceptionally competent, and I have to say that she proved herself to be worthy of the highest trust.

After her service in the House, Dr. Wilson became the president of the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. There, she again set a high bar by leading a school whose alumni, I have been informed, make a higher average starting salary than do Harvard graduates.

For over 20 years, our Nation's Air Force has been involved in conflicts all over the world. Now more than ever, the Air Force needs a proven leader who can modernize the service and lead us to victory. I believe Dr. Wilson will provide that leadership. I have every confidence that she will serve with honor and integrity and make a lasting difference as the next Secretary of the Air Force. I have known her for a long time. I have gone to her State and worked with her and campaigned with her. All I can say is that she is a very top-notch woman leader, one of the best I have seen in all of my time in the U.S. Senate, and I know she is going to do a terrific job. I am going to help her every step of the way, and I am sure everybody else here will.

I hope everybody on this floor will vote for Dr. Heather Wilson for this position. We cannot lose. We are all going to be ahead because she is willing to serve and serve more, and she is willing to leave what really is a very comfortable position in order to take one that is not so comfortable and is very demanding, and I respect her for that and think the world of her.

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

Mr. President, as we continue this historic effort in Congress to repeal harmful regulations, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 66.

Due to the aggressive regulatory posture taken by the Obama administration in its final months, Congress has had to spend a significant portion of time repealing regulations under the Congressional Review Act, and our level of success has been unprecedented.

Before 2017, only one CRA resolution had ever been successfully passed by Congress and signed by the President. If passed and signed, H.J. Res. 66 would be the 14th CRA resolution enacted this year. That is remarkable. It is unfortunate that we are in this situation, no doubt, but our success in rolling back harmful regulations is a positive step, in my view and in the view of so many others.

There is a growing consensus here in Washington and throughout our country that the U.S. economy--our workers, businesses, and job creators--are horribly overregulated. Regulations promulgated by the executive branch take hundreds of billions of dollars out of our economy. The resolution before us will repeal a regulation that President Obama apparently personally ordered Labor Secretary Tom Perez to draft as a gift to certain blue States.

The regulation eliminated longstanding Federal protections for the retirement savings of private sector workers, specifically giving States a ``safe harbor'' from the protection that workers have had for decades under ERISA if the State requires employers to either set up a retirement plan or enroll its employees in a State-run plan.

These State plans do not have to be portable, nor do they have to permit workers to withdraw their savings at any time. States like California, Oregon, Connecticut, Maryland, and Illinois are already using this authority to impose new mandates on both large and small employers, including startup businesses. Some of the mandates apply regardless of the size of the business.

The regulation not only encourages States to impose conflicting and burdensome mandates on private sector businesses, but it also encourages States to bar private workers' access to their retirement accounts, and it would let States invest private workers' retirement assets, ignoring provisions in Federal pension law that require prudent pension investment practices and that ban kickbacks and self-dealing.

Some States have already made it clear that once they take control of the private worker assets, they intend to invest them just like they invest their State pension plan assets.

For anyone who is following our Nation's current public pension crisis, that is not a pretty picture--and that is being kind. Put simply, States like California and Illinois shouldn't get a pass on investing potentially billions of dollars in private worker retirement assets without having to follow Federal rules requiring prudent investment practices--rules designed to protect retirement nest eggs of hard-working Americans.

I am all for increasing coverage for employees and workplace retirement programs. I have been working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address this issue.

For example, last Congress, the Senate Finance Committee, which I chair, unanimously approved the Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act of 2016, a bipartisan bill designed to increase voluntary retirement savings.

My bill and others like it provide workable, voluntary solutions to give more workers access to retirement plans. I emphasize the word ``voluntary.'' In America, we have a voluntary defined contribution retirement system for private businesses, and the voluntary approach with appropriate incentives for workers and employers is far better than the one taken by the Obama administration and former Labor Secretary Tom Perez, which

would take us down the path toward government-mandated and government- run retirement plans. That is not really hyperbole. That is essentially the stated purpose of these types of regulations.

The current retirement savings system clearly demonstrates the superiority of the free market over government mandates when it comes to government savings. Private retirement savings vehicles, like 401(k)s and IRAs that have been encouraged but not mandated by Federal laws have produced nearly $14 trillion in wealth and savings for the middle class.

Let me repeat that. Private retirement savings vehicles, with encouragements and investor protections but not mandates, have produced nearly $14 trillion in wealth and savings for middle-class Americans.

I agree that we need to enhance this system to give more workers access and incentives to participate, but there is absolutely no justification for any effort to reinvent the retirement savings system in order to give primacy to government-run plans. I can only wonder why States think they will be able to produce better results than the private retirement savings system, which has been an unqualified success. I have to wonder how some of my colleagues who value consumer financial protection, as I do, would want to see abandonment of rules, under the guise of a safe harbor, that erode protections for the savings of workers and future retirees.

We can do our part to undo this harmful regulation by passing H.J. Res 66. Toward that end, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.