Floor Statements

Mr. President, often here in Washington, it can be difficult to focus on what counts.

We live in an information environment which is increasingly atomized and persistently polarized. Almost all will inevitably focus on who is up and who is down in the endless cycle of partisan gamesmanship. News cycles come and news cycles go. Poll numbers jump, then fall, then jump again, and fall again, but nobody should forget that what really matters around here, at the end of the day, is policy, and the first year of unified Republican government has delivered plenty of that.

In 2016, the American people faced a stark choice. The Republicans promised a new era of deregulation and limited government--a new policy approach that would entrust free markets and free citizens to drive us forward. The Democrats, on the other hand, renewed and restated their faith in the effectiveness of government, centered here in Washington, to direct and command the national welfare. The American people spoke loudly, and they spoke decisively. The Republicans were given the reins and were instructed to sort all of this out.

Nobody needs to remind me that elections are the beginning of the challenge, not the end. The Republicans may have prevailed in the campaign, but an election won is nothing more than an opportunity seized. It is nothing more than a charge to carry out the promises offered on the trail, and that is precisely what we are doing.

Here in the Senate, despite fits and starts, we are moving the ball forward. Notwithstanding often vicious treatment by the media and the constant obstruction of the Democrats here in Congress, we are getting work done. Promises made in 2016 have become promises kept in 2017. The American people were promised the removal of redtape and infuriating bureaucratic encumbrances on economic growth. As soon as we took office in early 2017, we moved to do just that.

We confirmed Neomi Rao as the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Under her stewardship, the Executive has cut over a dozen old rules for every single new rule created. Regulation has been subjected to actual cost-savings analysis, and, likely, billions have been saved in the process.

Here in Congress we passed a dozen CRAs to cut down on costly and ineffective rules passed in the twilight hours of the Obama administration. The list of deregulatory items speaks for itself: restoration of free markets and free competition on internet, done; new environmental policy to unleash the potential of American energy production, done; reform of public lands designation and renewal of State and local control over western territories, done; Labor Department reform that restores bargaining power to employees and employers rather than unions and bureaucrats, done. On nearly every front, from education to justice issues and everything in between, there has been substantial progress.

Personnel are often the catalyst to policy, and we still have nominations in several agencies to come. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is in good hands with Mick Mulvaney and will eventually be handed off to a capable permanent Director. Federal Trade Commission nominations should be arriving shortly, and just recently the

Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously reported the next Director of the USPTO, Andrei Iancu. As a longtime champion of intellectual property rights, and head of the High-Tech Task Force, I encourage my colleagues to swiftly confirm him to this post.

Overall, this President has delivered on his nominations, and his nominees have delivered on his promises. While I am on the topic of nominations, I want to talk about the judiciary. Controversy seems to be swirling, due to a few recent--and I would say unfortunate--bumps in the road, but we must not miss the forest no matter how much the press would like to harken on a few of the trees. The accomplishments of this administration and Senate in addressing the judiciary have been historic.

Neil Gorsuch was a superb choice for the Supreme Court. At a critical juncture for our courts, he stands poised to seize the mantle left by Justice Antonin Scalia and carry the cause of originalism and textualism forward for a new generation, but Justice Gorsuch was only the beginning. From the circuit courts to the district courts, judicial nominations across the board have really been outstanding. We have confirmed more circuit court nominees this year than in any President's first year in American history.

We accomplished this despite Democrats using their time-tested obstruction tactics and even coming up with some new ones. They forced us to take 18 cloture votes on judicial nominees alone this year, compared to just one cloture vote during the first year of all previous Presidents combined. Nevertheless, we got the job done. The results will be felt for decades to come.

Whatever our differences on other issues, conservatives across the board heartily approve of the way this administration has handled judicial nominations.

I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as Leader McConnell, to confirm these judges. As the rest of our agenda gains steam, judicial selection will remain the vanguard. There are more judges to come this new year, and we are going to keep on confirming them. Each and every week, a new trial or appellate court judge will add to the ranks of a rapidly improving judiciary.

Finally, on the legislative front, this administration and Republican Congress have just delivered the most consequential and far-reaching tax reform package in 30 years. When other administrations and other sessions of Congress couldn't get it done, we did. Individuals will see their tax rates drop. Businesses, from large corporations that employ thousands to small businesses paying passthrough rates, will enjoy new capital for investment, expansion, and more. In fact, seemingly to the dismay of our Democratic colleagues, businesses are already responding to the good news with announcements of bonuses and new ventures, and that is just the beginning.

On top of it all, the individual mandate has been repealed and ObamaCare is now firmly on its way out, thank goodness. Despite earlier difficulties, we are well on our way toward repeal. As we move toward 2018, we can look forward to additional policy success on everything from entitlements to infrastructure to immigration.

In conclusion, I don't want to hear anyone claim that this President and this Congress have not gotten things done. Promises were made and promises were kept. Only a year into things, we are making good on our pledge for historic change in Washington.

Mr. President, on another matter, I would like to offer a few words of support for the nomination of Ryan Nelson to be the Solicitor for the Department of Interior.

Mr. Nelson has a distinguished legal background. He has worked in both the private and public sector, including in all three branches of the Federal Government. Most importantly, he is respected by those members of the Idaho State Bar who know him best.

He has been endorsed by numerous colleagues representing a broad spectrum of political views. Mr. Nelson's exemplary legal background makes him ideally suited to serve as the Department of Interior's Solicitor, and we owe the people of Utah and the West the opportunity to confirm him at once.

Once confirmed, I am very eager to work with Mr. Nelson and Secretary Ryan Zinke to continue a shared mission of restoring trust between the Federal Government and the people of the West.

There have been some marvelous changes this year, and there will be even more if we could just work together and quit all the bumbling around here as though we hate each other. I am grateful for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I believe we have made important strides this year, and I think we can make even more. I am grateful for what we have been able to get done this year.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to discuss the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP.

As we all know, the authorization for CHIP expired at the end of September. Since that time, States have been utilizing their reserve funds in order to cover the healthcare needs of kids. For a number of States, those funds are due to run out in the near future.

There have been a number of claims from our friends on the other side and some of their allies in the media that Republicans have ignored the CHIP program; that we don't intend to reauthorize it; or that we supposedly placed a higher priority on tax cuts for the rich than on providing health insurance for needy children. Those claims are absolutely ridiculous, and they know it. It gets a little old sometimes--some of the stupid politics that are being played by the other side.

I come at this issue from two angles. I am both the original author of CHIP, and I currently chair the committee with jurisdiction over the program. Nobody should doubt my commitment to

continuing the CHIP program. For two decades now, I have been a supporter of CHIP, and I worked with Members of both parties to keep it moving forward and functioning properly--even in times when my Democratic colleagues have pursued a more divisive approach with the program. That commitment continues to this day.

On October 4, the Senate Finance Committee unanimously reported a bipartisan bill that would reauthorize CHIP for 5 years. In my view, a long-term reauthorization is essential so that States, including my home State of Utah, can plan well into the future and the families who benefit from CHIP can be sure that coverage for their needy children won't just disappear.

It appears that the year-end continuing resolution could include a short-term reauthorization for CHIP. That is far from ideal, and as the leading advocate for this program, I have no desire to see it become subject to repeated short-term fixes and constantly looming deadlines.

I intend to continue working with Senator Wyden and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in both the Senate and the House to enact the KIDS Act in a fiscally responsible manner as soon as possible. Doing so is essential to providing certainty for families and States.

Mr. President, with this week's passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, many throughout the country are rightly celebrating the first substantive reform of our Nation's Tax Code in more than three decades.

While the popular narrative surrounding this bill has been that Congress has moved quickly to pass this legislation, I don't think anyone who has worked on tax reform over the last several years would agree with that assessment. This week's success is made possible by years of hard work and the efforts of countless policymakers, experts, advocates, and public servants.

Over the last several years, I have come to the floor on many occasions to advocate for tax reform. I am glad today to be able to rise and acknowledge the efforts of many people whose work made the historic occasion possible.

First, I would like to thank those Members who went before us. Former Chairmen Camp, Grassley, and Baucus spent the better part of the decade laying the groundwork for this effort.

I also want to thank Senator Wyden, who, along with Chairman Baucus, worked with me on the Finance Committee over the last several years as we produced reports and options papers, convened bipartisan working groups, and held more than 70 hearings to discuss tax policy.

While I have been disappointed that my Democratic colleagues have opted not to participate in this year's efforts to produce this particular bill, they definitely contributed to this knowledge and policy base we worked from to put our legislation together.

For years, I have reiterated the importance of Presidential leadership when it comes to tax reform. I am grateful that President Trump has been willing to engage with Congress on this issue and to put some political skin in the game in order to move us forward.

From the outset of this administration, Secretary Mnuchin and Director Cohn have been actively working to make this success a reality. I thank them for their engagement in this effort and the work they and their staffs have put in.

From the Treasury staff, I would like to thank Justin Muzinich, Dan Kowalski, and Jay Mackie.

From Director Cohn's staff at the National Economic Council, I need to thank Jeremy Katz and Shahira Knight.

From the White House, thanks to Mark Short, Amy Swonger, Andy Koenig, Joseph Lai, and Jim Goyer.

These staffers from the administration have worked for the better part of the year with leaders from both Chambers to produce this bill and get it over the finish line. Their success is shared with our colleagues over in the House, led by Chairman Brady and Speaker Ryan. I thank my colleagues for their hard work and their willingness to find common ground when many believed that it was impossible to do so.

From the Ways and Means staff, I want to thank David Stewart, Matt Weidinger, Allison Halataei, Rick Limardo, and Paul Guaglianone. Special thanks is owed to the committee tax staff: Barbara Angus, Aharon Friedman, John Sandell, Victoria Glover, John Schoenecker, Randy Gartin, Aaron Junge, Donald Scheider, Danielle Dubose, Kathryn Chakmak, and Loren Ponds.

From the Speaker's office, I want to thank Jonathan Burks, Austin Smythe, George Callas, Derrick Dockery, and Josh Althouse.

From the House majority whip's office, I need to thank both Marty Reiser and Kelly Hudak.

Of course, here in the Senate, we have been ably led by the majority leader. I want to thank Senator McConnell for his commitment to get this done and for his leadership throughout this entire endeavor.

From the leader's staff, I want to thank Sharon Soderstrom, Brendan Dunn, Antonia Ferrier, Hazen Marshall, Erica Suares, Terry Van Doren, Don Stewart, and Jane Lee.

Joining Senator McConnell, as always, has been our distinguished majority whip. I thank Senator Cornyn for his efforts in shoring up support and addressing our Members' concerns from the beginning of this process until final passage of the conference report.

From the whip's staff, I want to thank Monica Popp and Sam Beaver.

Of course, when it came time to draft the Senate's tax reform legislation, most of the real work was done in the Finance Committee. The committee bill was truly a shared product that included the input and addressed the interests of every majority member on our dais. Without their work, we wouldn't have had a bill, and without their commitment to seeing this through, we wouldn't have gotten to where we are.

I want to thank Senators Grassley, Crapo, Roberts, Enzi, Cornyn, Thune, Burr, Isakson, Portman, Toomey, Heller, Scott, and Cassidy for the months of work they put into producing and passing this legislation. I also need to thank their staffs who, until this week, haven't slept in months.

My thanks also go to the tax staffers on the committee, namely, Chris Allen, Joseph Boddicker, Chris Conlin, Shay Hawkins, Randy Herndon, Bart Massey, Monica McGuire, Mike Quickel, Zachary Rudisill, Andrew Siracuse, Robert Sneeden, Derek Theurer, and Mark Warren.

My thanks go, as well, to the committee's legislative directors: Charles Cogar, Ken Flanz, Chris Gillott, Brad Grantz, Amber Kirchhoefer, Kurt Kovarik, Jessica McBride, Sarah Paul, Landon Stropko, Jay Sulzmann, Stephen Tausend, Pam Thiessen, and Christopher Toppings.

Of course, when the Democrats signaled their refusal to even meet on tax reform, we knew we would need a well-crafted budget resolution with the right instruction to get tax reform passed. So I need to thank my good friend, Chairman Enzi, and the Budget Committee for their work, which made a seemingly mundane and tedious process look easy.

From the Budget Committee staff, I want to thank Joe Brenckle, Jim Neill, Betsy McDonnell, Matt Giroux, Paul Vinovich, Becky Cole, Eric Ueland, Steve Townsend, Jeremy Dalrymple, and Thomas Fueller.

Once we had a resolution, we had to hold a markup. In the Finance Committee, that can be a challenging process, particularly on a bill this big and complex.

Thankfully, we have been ably served by a professional staff who helped us through that whole process, namely, Joshua Levasseur, Jewel Harper, Joe Carnucci, Mark Blair, Athena Schritz, Susanna Segal, Eliza Smith, Tim Corley, and Michael Pinkerton.

The Joint Committee on Taxation was also critical throughout the committee process, as well as when we moved the bill onto the floor. They worked countless hours doing the work that often just made everybody mad at one point or another. Theirs is an often thankless but really critical job, and I am grateful for their dedication and earnestness.

Specifically, I need to thank Tom Barthold and his team for making sure both parties in the House and the Senate were getting all the information that was needed, at times under challenging time constraints. Tom does a

terrific job for the Senate, and I personally appreciate him and value him as a friend.

After moving a mark through the committee, we relied on assistance from the Senate Legislative Counsel's office to put together the legislative text. That was a critical step, and we could not have done it without Mark McGunagle, Jim Fransen, and their team.

Then as we began to prep the bill for the floor, we spent countless hours debating different provisions before the Parliamentarian. This process can be difficult, and I would like to offer my thanks to our Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, and her team for the hours and days they put into helping us comply with the rules of the Senate.

As the bill neared its final phase, we were grateful to be able to work with Senator Murkowski on the second title of the bill, and as we moved to conference committee, Senator Murkowski's counterparts in the House also played an instrumental role in helping to finalize this legislation.

Of course, there are those who work hard to make sure things go smoothly here on the floor. I thank the majority floor staff for their assistance, particularly, Laura Dove, Robert Duncan, and Megan Mercer.

As I said, this has been a long process, and throughout this entire venture, I have had the benefit of working with a skilled and committed staff. My staff have sacrificed time, energy, sleep, and, in some cases, likely their physical and mental health for the passage of this bill. It has been an incredible effort, and I need to thank all of them.

I want to single out my chief tax counsel, Mark Prater. I think everyone in this Chamber and everyone in Washington would agree that we could not have done any of this without Mark.

I also need to thank my staff director, Jay Khosla, who has been the tip of the spear, managing the incoming and outgoing issues with apparent ease. I also want to thank his assistant, Jason Stegmaier, for helping to keep Jay from forgetting the important details, like remembering to eat lunch.

I want to thank my entire tax staff: Jennifer Acuna, Tony Coughlan, Christopher Hanna, Alex Monie, Eric Oman, Marty Pippins, Preston Rutledge, and Nick Wyatt.

I need to thank the members of my senior team as well: Matt Hoffmann, Jeff Wrase, Julia Lawless, Jennifer Kuskowski, Chris Armstrong, Bryan Hickman, and Shane Warren.

I want to thank my communications staff on the committee: Katie Niederee, Nicole Hager, and Joshua Blume.

I also want to thank a couple of former Finance Committee staff members, specifically, Chris Campbell, my former staff director, who helped to set the stage for this entire effort, and Jim Lyons, my tax counsel who passed away last year, much to the sorrow of us. He spent years working on tax reform, and I know we all wish he could have been here to celebrate with us this week.

From my personal office staff, I want to thank my legislative assistant, James Williams, and Matt Sandgren, my chief of staff.

There are many more people who deserve thanks this week--far too many to mention at this time. They are not forgotten, though, believe me.

We have done a good thing here this week. This is truly a historic success.

Some of our colleagues on the other side last night said that the American people will remember what happened here this week. To that, all I can say is that I hope they do. This new tax law will do a lot of good for a great number of people throughout our country, and I am humbled to have been a part of the efforts of so many people who were willing to get this thing done for the American people.

I am grateful to my staff. I am grateful to the staffs of our Senators on the committee. I am grateful for everyone involved in the Finance Committee and for the good efforts that they put forward. But I am really grateful that I serve in the U.S. Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world, and this is a perfect illustration of why.

I am very grateful to be able to stand on this floor and show my complete devotion to this wonderful government. To both sides of the floor--Democrats and Republicans alike--I am grateful. I am grateful that we have this Constitution to guide us, and I am grateful that for the most part, we have abided by it.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor Mark E. Miller, for his distinguished public service and professional assistance to the Senate Finance Committee, as well as to the rest of Congress.

Mr. Miller served as the executive director of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, or MedPAC, for the last 15 years. During that time, he dedicated himself to our country, ensuring Congress received impartial, data-driven, and sound policy advice to transform the Medicare Program while protecting our Nation's seniors and the disabled.

MedPAC was established by Congress in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act. It is a nonpartisan agency that provides analysis and policy recommendations regarding the Medicare Program, including payment, beneficiary access to care, and quality of care for traditional fee-for-service Medicare and Medicare Advantage. As all of us know, the analysis we get from MedPAC is critical in how we, as Members of Congress, debate, address changes, and ultimately make improvements to the Medicare Program.

Throughout his service, Mr. Miller ensured that MedPAC consistently fulfilled its mission of providing objective, empirically driven policy analysis and advice to Congress.

Mr. Miller himself also testified, answered calls, and otherwise provided invaluable advice on complicated Medicare payment issues to both majority and minority leaders, Finance Committee chairmen and ranking members, as well as other committee members, and other Member offices regarding all things healthcare. Throughout his years of service, Mr. Miller has proven himself a trusted source of objective information.

Mr. Miller gave years of his life, including countless long nights, weekends, and early mornings to make sure Congress has the best and most reliable information it can get. In turn, that analysis has guided many ideas and recommendations into legislation that made its way to a President's desk for signature. Mr. Miller's professionalism, expertise, energy, patience, humor, and dedication make him an example to all of us as we work the process of designing and ultimately enacting legislation. Mark has been there from the beginning, watching an idea being born, helping to develop policy to achieve that idea, and providing valuable policy counsel as it works its way through the legislative process to ultimately becoming law.

Thanks to his sense of purpose, dedication, and love for this country, Mr. Miller should be seen as just as much an influence on our current Medicare policy as most Members in this body. Mark is a consummate professional, and he will be missed. I wish him all the very best as he takes the next steps in his successful career.

May we ever remember Mark's service, and may MedPAC ever be guided by the same sense of duty and purpose Mr. Miller instilled in his 15 years leading that organization.

Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on the conference report for H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I have waited a long time to give this final statement in support of tax reform legislation.

(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)

Mr. President, this fellow has a very interesting way of trying to get his point of view across. It shouldn't be done here in this august body.

Let me just start again.

The Senate will soon vote on the conference report for H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I have waited a long time to be able to give this final statement in support of tax reform legislation.

I have been in the Senate for a little while. I have been party to a number of major legislative achievements, like the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the creation of the CHIP program, the Child Health Insurance Program, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, to name just a few. These are landmark bills, and I have had a lot to do with them.

The legislation before us is as important and as far-reaching as anything I have been privileged to work on. It is beyond gratifying to see the Senate reach this point, and I look forward to finally seeing real tax legislation signed into law.

I apologize for this type of intemperate action and mouthing off inside of this august Chamber. People feel very deeply about these things on both sides of the issues.

Passage of this important bill will be historic. It is the combination of years of work by people in both parties, in both Chambers, and on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue. Many of us in this body have been waiting for years for this opportunity, and millions of Americans outside of this body have been waiting even longer.

It is no secret that our Tax Code is broken. Members of both parties have acknowledged this. If you walked across the country and asked Americans of all backgrounds and ideologies, you wouldn't find many who would be willing to defend the status quo. I don't think you would find anybody.

There is one apt phrase my good friend Senator Wyden uses to describe our Tax Code. He calls it ``a dying carcass.'' Indeed, our Tax Code is dying and rotting. It has hampered job creation, wage growth, investment in the United States, and it has chased American companies to foreign shores. I don't know how it could be more harmful than it has been. It has also given foreign companies a leg up on U.S. businesses in the global marketplace, leading to a record number of foreign takeovers and inversions. The bill before us will address these problems and help us turn the ship around.

Our legislation will reduce the corporate tax rate to 21 percent-- something that is long overdue--the lowest level in the modern history of the United States, placing our country slightly below the average of industrialized countries. These changes will once again give American companies a competitive edge and bring more businesses back home instead of losing them the way we have been.

Hundreds of economists have said that our bill will boost economic growth, and numerous companies have indicated that once our bill becomes law, they will invest heavily in expansion and job creation right here in the United States of America.

In addition, as the Joint Committee on Taxation has made clear, reducing the corporate tax rate has distributional effects that go beyond the companies themselves, their high-ranking officers, or even their richest shareholders. In fact, JCT--the Joint Committee on Taxation--estimates that workers bear 25 percent of the corporate tax rate and other economists have found that this number can reach as high as 75 percent. This means that no matter how you slice it, Americans will see their wages go up when corporate tax rates go down.

Further, over the last few decades, we have seen a massive expansion of pension and retirement assets, much of which are invested in corporate stocks. While many of my colleagues like to decry any business from merely earning a profit, the truth is that the continued rise in corporate profits has significantly expanded the wealth of middle-class workers and taxpayers who have continually set aside funds for the future.

A representative from the Tax Policy Center testified before the Finance Committee in the spring of last year. At that hearing he stated that 37 percent of corporate stock ownership was held in retirement plan accounts--37 percent. That was the largest share of overall stock ownership, and that statistic syncs up with the distribution tables put out by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

For all of these reasons, lowering the corporate tax rate has been a bipartisan goal for over a decade now. I have said it before: Presidents Clinton and Obama, Senators Wyden and Schumer, and most of the other Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee have at some point in the recent past endorsed a significant reduction in the U.S. corporate tax rate.

Our bill will achieve this bipartisan goal and place our country well within the mainstream among our international competitors. This is a good thing--not just for businesses and rich stockholders but for working, middle-class families as well.

Let's be clear. This bill's chief focus is about helping the middle class. I know there is a tendency among some in this Chamber to act and speak as though all money in this country inherently belongs to the government. I won't speak for everyone, but those of us who have worked on this bill tend to think differently.

Aside from business reforms that will grow our economy, increase wages, and create jobs, our bill will lower individual tax rates across the board, allowing hard-working Americans to keep more of their money. In our bill, we also nearly double the standard deduction for individuals and married couples. This feature will significantly reduce the burden of tax filing for millions of middle-class families and decrease even further the overall tax liability of millions more. For the first time in more than 30 years, nearly every American will get more money back by just filing out an EZ form. This, without a doubt, fulfills our goal of simplifying the Tax Code.

For individuals who are concerned about being able to itemize--again, we believe the number of people with this concern will decrease dramatically under our bill--we retain a number of key provisions that benefit many in the middle class. For example, this historic legislation will allow individuals and families to continue to claim deductions for State and local taxes, up to $10,000 a year. It will keep in place, with relatively minor adjustments, the deduction for mortgage interest. And Americans who itemize and want to deduct their charitable deductions will be free to do so. This has made America great, and it has helped us at the same time to be more charitable. We are also expanding the child tax credit with this bill, doubling it from $1,000 to $2,000 per child and making the credit far more refundable than ever before. The adoption credit will stay in place. The deduction for medical expenses will still be available. Credits and assistance for students and their families will be untouched. We have made all of these changes and, when necessary, preserved current law, with an eye toward helping the middle class.

I know a number of my colleagues like to argue that this bill will have different results. Let's look at the numbers.

Under this bill, a typical family of four, earning the median family income of $73,000, will see their taxes go down by more than half-- about 58 percent. That number means something more than just a simple percentage; it means that an average American family will be able to keep $2,058 more of their own earnings next year. That is a mortgage payment, a downpayment for a car, or several months' worth of groceries.

What about a single parent? Under our plan, a single parent with one child, making $41,000, will see their taxes slashed by nearly 73 percent. That is almost a three-quarter reduction in tax liability. That means a savings of more than $1,300 over the course of a year. That could be a month of daycare expenses, multiple car payments, or a family vacation.

These are things that matter to American families, and they well should. But our friends on the other side have been so caught up in partisan politics that they decided to ignore the Americans who will benefit from this legislation. I think it started with the election of President Trump and the retention of Senate control by Republicans. Their base protested, occupied, and disrupted the transfer of power from President Obama to President Trump. Here on the Hill, the ``resistance'' was in full effect right off the bat, with a coordinated effort to stall nominations in committee, which included unprecedented boycotts and refusals to meet with nominees. It has only gone downhill from there.

While we heard words from our friends on the other side about participating in tax reform, their actions showed otherwise. I don't know how they can stand here and make some of the arguments they do. Unprecedented process demands were made. Resistance was the plan, and that plan was carried out. Now we hear about massive tax cuts for the very rich and huge breaks for corporations, but these claims fall apart when you look at the facts.

Again, this isn't unchartered territory for my friends on the other side. Accusing Republicans of hating the poor and loving the rich is one of their go-to moves. I have seen it for over 40 years. Every time you turn around, there is one of their go-to moves, and it has nothing to do with reality. I do think they are getting more desperate and vicious in their attacks because they regret their own decisions to sit out of this endeavor. That is precisely how it happened. Our colleagues were apparently so preoccupied with denying President Trump and congressional Republicans any success, they chose not to engage and instead to sit in the peanut gallery throwing out baseless attacks.

As I have said literally dozens of times over the past few years, I wish the Democrats had joined us in this process, put aside their ultimatums and preconditions, and helped to advance policies that they have claimed to support for years now. But we are where we are, and while the bill before us includes a number of ideas and proposals Democrats have supported, we are prepared to pass it without their

votes, if that is what it takes. There have been some Democrats who have worked with us, but they have been few and far between.

Once again, this is a historic bill. I am proud of the work we have done in the Finance Committee, here on the floor, and in conference to get us to this point. I again invite our friends on the other side to also support the bill. I am proud of our colleagues who have put in so much effort to get us here. I am proud of the staff on Capitol Hill who have labored day and night to assist in this endeavor.

As I said, this legislation has been years in the making. I urge all of my colleagues to support the conference report and help us send it to the President's desk. You will not regret it. Those who support this will not regret it.

I think we ought to get rid of this hatred for Donald Trump that currently exists in this country and in this body. I think we should give the man a chance. He hasn't even been President for a year yet. Give him a chance. Even though he hasn't been President for a year yet, we have had some amazing changes in this country for the better, and I think we could have many more.

What really interests me is that Donald Trump, 6 or 7 years ago, was working with Democrats as well as Republicans. He offered to work with the Democrats on these matters, and they have not taken up the offer. Instead, it is as though they are still bitter because he beat their candidate for President.

I would like to have us get over that type of petty politics and see what we can do to work together. Heaven knows, on the Finance Committee, I believe we have good Democrats on that committee, as well as good Republicans, and I think we can work together. I have to say, I don't think we have as well as we should, but I think we can, and I am hopeful that we will.

This is an important bill. It is a bill that really does need to pass. It is a bill that will help this country. It is a bill that will help the middle class. In fact, it is going to help everybody, but it will certainly help the middle class most of all.

I hope our colleagues put aside their petty politics on both sides and come together to support this bill, which literally can help save this country an awful lot of pain over the next number of years and give the government the kinds of resources that it needs to be able to do what the Federal Government needs to do for its people. I think we can.

People in this body know that I have spent years here. I am the most senior Republican. I have been here longer than any other Republican that I know of, and I have the legislative record to back it up--a record that has included working with Democrats almost every step of the way. I am offering to make sure we work together, but I haven't seen it on the other side. Can they get over the bitterness they have?

We heard this loudmouth in the Gallery who has no good sense and a total lack of etiquette and a total lack of respect for this government and this Senate. If I were on his side, I would be humiliated because he was just a big loudmouth who didn't mean a doggone thing. Unfortunately, I think there are more people like that who are so bitter that they will raise these types of issues without really trying to work together.

I am one who has a reputation for working together. I am chairman of the Finance Committee. I have enjoyed my work with the distinguished Democratic leader on the Finance Committee, Senator Wyden. I care for him. I care for the other Democrats on the committee, as well as all of our Republicans. We work pretty well together. It is getting harder and harder to work together when all we see are screaming and shouting because they can't get their way because they are no longer in the majority. I hope they get over that, and I hope they start working with us. If they will, we can do an awful lot of good things for this country, and we can bring people together across this whole country-- people who right now are divided because they don't know what to do. They see us screaming and shouting around here and a total lack of willingness to get together. I would like to change it. I am open to changing it.

This bill that we have is a very, very important bill, and we need to pass it. My friends on the other side need to realize that, and I hope we will get some of them to vote for it. They know it is right. Deep down, they know it is right. It might not be everything they like themselves. It is not everything I myself would like. But it is a doggone good bill, and it is something that could really help this country pull out of the mess that it is in.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have listened to the comments of my friends on the other side for several hours. Frankly, it has tried my patience.

If you boil down the inaccurate assertions, you come up with two basic points. One, that the bill before us cuts taxes for wealthy taxpayers proportionately more than it does for middle-income taxpayers. Two, this bill raises taxes on middle-income taxpayers.

Nothing like some old-fashioned nonpartisan light to cut through the partisan fog created by my friends on the other side.

I refer to a set of tables developed by the nonpartisan official congressional tax scorekeeper, the Joint Committee on Taxation, which I will ask consent to have printed in the Record.

The tables show significant tax cut for middle-income taxpayers.

Let's take a look at taxpayers in which the median U.S. income reside. I am talking about taxpayers at income levels between $50,000 and $75,000. In 2019, two-thirds of taxpayers receive a tax cut of greater than $500. In 2021, 61.7 percent receive a tax cut of greater than $500. In 2023, 54.8 percent of taxpayers will receive a tax cut of greater than $500. In 2021, 53 percent of taxpayers receive a tax cut of greater than $500. The individual income tax cuts sunset in 2026.

Let's take a look at another middle-income group, those in the $75,000 to $100,000 cohort. In 2019, 77.8 percent of those taxpayers receive a tax cut of greater than $500. In 2021, that figure is 72.2 percent. In 2023, that figure is 63.1 percent. In 2025, that figure is 61.4 percent. The individual tax cuts expire in 2026.

I ask my friends on the other side to shut down their rhetorical fog machine. Stop the phony characterization of this bill as a tax cut for the wealthy. Recognize it for what it is, a tax cut for Americans that is focused on middle-income families.

Mr. President, I agree.

The Senator is correct. The conference report language for the bill does not change or modify the intended scope of the statement he cites. The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service should interpret the stock attribution rules consistent with this explanation, as released by the Senate Budget Committee. I would also note that the reason his amendment No. 1666 was not adopted is because it was not needed to reflect the intent of the Senate Finance Committee or the conferees for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

I thank my friend from Georgia for his leadership on this issue to ensure that the stock attribution rules operate consistent with our intent and do not result in unintended consequences. I look forward to continuing to work with him on this important issue.

Mr. President, I, personally, congratulate the distinguished Senator from Ohio. He is one of the most intelligent people in this body. He has had all kinds of experience outside of the Senate. He is a person whom everybody should listen to. He makes a lot of sense. He is one of the most valued members of a very strong committee, with all kinds of valued members on it, but he is one of those valued members on the Senate Finance Committee, and I have nothing but respect for him.

Everything he has said here this evening is true. It is mind-boggling to me that we even have arguments from the other side. We are talking about pulling this country out of the mess it is in, and it is going to take this.

I just want to compliment the distinguished Senator from Ohio. He is a terrific human being, with a tremendous ability, who has had a lot of experience outside of the U.S. Senate, and who has been successful everywhere he has gone. He is one of the most distinguished members of the Senate Finance Committee. He is not talking politically; he is talking factually. I just wish everybody in this body were on the floor to listen to him. I have tremendous respect for him. That is one reason I am getting up here right now.

We can turn this mess around, but if we don't do it soon, it may be impossible to turn it around. We have been spending this government into bankruptcy. That is where we are. We keep making excuses so we can go back and beat our breasts and claim we are doing so much for the people when we are just spending them right into bankruptcy. It is making it more difficult for the committees to do their work. I just wish we could get both sides together once in a while instead of having all of this inner conflict on everything that comes up.

It is almost like, if a Republican says something, it has to be contradicted, and I might add, if a Democrat says something, he has to be contradicted. I don't mind good arguments. I don't mind people having different points of view. That is what makes this place a great place. That is what helps the United States of America to be a great country and a great government, but we don't even listen to each other anymore.

Where is this bipartisanship that this country really, drastically needs?

We happen to be in the majority right now. It seems to me that a decent minority would want to find ways to work with the, hopefully, decent majority. I think we can be very decent on our side, and I believe my colleagues on the other side can be very decent. Let's get rid of the politics, and let's do what is best for America. Let's get this country out of the mess it is in. The distinguished Senator from Ohio has shown us some ways here.

Our tax policy is for the birds. We know what we need to do, but every time you raise a solution, you have somebody saying: Well, that is not the answer. Then we have the conflicts between the two Houses. That is good because that is what helps us to refine some of this legislation.

All I can say is, I just wish all of us would put the country first, put politics second, be politically astute but at least be open to rational reasoning, whether it comes from the other side or our side. I am just amazed at how we can sit and belabor these things day in and day out and never really get together. We are hurting the country because we are unwilling to get together. We are hurting the Congress of the United States because we are unwilling to get together.

I could go on and on as to our unwillingness to get together. I think it is time for us to wake up and start saying: Look, let's find common ground. Let's find ways of getting together instead of constantly fighting each other on every stinking issue that comes up. There are reasons for differences in politics and reasons for differences in tax policy, but we ought to be able to at least discuss these differences without there being total partisanship, which is what we are, unfortunately, suffering from. I believe we can turn this mess around. If we do, it will be a banner for everybody to march behind, and it seems to me it will be an example for the whole world. I would like to see us do it.

I know there are people on the other side who cannot stand the President. Yes, he won an election they didn't think he should have won, but he did win. He has thrown his hands open to the other side and, I believe, would do more. It was only 7 or 8 years ago when he was much more moderate than he is now. I think all they need to do is to reach out and grab his hands and say: Look, we will find some common ground here in the best interests of our country and in the best interests of everybody.

It is not bad to fight things out. I don't have any problem with that.

That is part of this body, part of what we do. But we actually have to come to some conclusions that will push the country forward, and we are not doing that, except on a limited basis that really doesn't amount to all that much.

We are coming to the end of a very difficult year. The Democrats thought they were going to win the Presidency, and they didn't. They especially feel badly about losing to somebody like Donald Trump, who, I think, has held out his hands and his arms to them and would do so if they would just embrace a little bit more of what he is trying to do. I would like to see us do this. I believe he would throw his arms out to whomever in this body would work with him, and by working with him, we may be able to get some of our ideas on both sides actually put into law that may help this country.

I really particularly enjoyed and appreciated the comments from the distinguished Senator from Ohio. I think he is one of the most distinguished people in this body. Earlier, I heard the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. He is a brilliant guy who works his butt off to try to get us into good places. We ought to listen more to these folks. There are folks on the other side who are brilliant, too, who, I think, make a real difference.

I particularly enjoy my counterpart on the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Wyden from Oregon. We are different. We have different philosophies, but I have never seen a day when he wasn't willing to sit down and work out our problems, and that to me is pretty important.

Our leaders are good people. I have watched Chuck Schumer for all the years he has been in the Senate and before, and he is a better leader than what we are getting here lately. I have watched Mitch McConnell. Mitch is one of the shrewdest people I have seen in this body since I have been a Member, and he is open. I would like to see our leaders get together a little bit more. I would like to see a little less fighting and a little more constructive work together. I don't expect miracles because I have been here only 41 years, but I do expect that we can do much better than what we are doing, and it is going to take both sides getting together to do it.

We happen to be in the majority right now, and the Democrats should give us an edge. We should give them the edge when they are in the majority. I think that I, for one, have done that.

I hope we can put aside our differences and start working together in the best interest of the country. I believe in this country. It is the greatest country in the world. People all over the world are praying that the United States will get it together. They know that we can lead. They know that we have leadership in the Congress of the United States. We can get it together if we will.

I appreciate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate that we have differences. I appreciate that sometimes those differences put us into pitched battles. That is not all bad, either. But it is bad if we don't work things out and if we don't look for the good on the other side in both ways.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have been listening to this debate for a long time, and I have to admit it has been interesting, but it has been prolonged way beyond where it should have been.

My friends on the other side make much about this process, demeaning the Members and staff who really put it together.

This bill was marked up in the Finance Committee. It is the first reconciliation bill to be processed in committee in the Senate in over 12 years. During that period, Democrats held power for 8 of those years; Republicans, 4 of those years.

The reconciliation bill that made up part of the Affordable Care Act never went through the Finance Committee. That reconciliation bill never went through any real Senate process. To be fair, the Affordable Care Act repeal bill that my side proposed didn't go

through the Finance Committee either. As difficult as it was, as chairman, I put out a chairman's mark, modified it, permitted debate and amendments, and put it to a vote, all in conformity with committee rules. We had a full Senate debate, amendments, and votes. So I don't want to hear tonight or at any time that the process deteriorated. It didn't deteriorate.

No, not just yet. I am going to finish these remarks.

I am going to insert in the Record an analysis of winners and losers. The analysis is dated today. It was produced by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.

I have the floor.

Mr. President, then I will withhold the unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I have just withdrawn the request. I will insert it later when it is more expeditious to do it.

The announcements I have been talking about is dated today, and it was produced by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. I would like to put it in the Record. We will do that, if we can. I hope my colleague will allow me to do that, and I will ask consent that it be put in the Record.

That analysis shows that middle-income taxpayers are winners. That nonpartisan data shows--sorry, my writing is not too good here--well, it shows that they are winners, and that is the clear impact of this bill. That data cuts through the rhetorical fog generated by my friends on the other side.

My friends on the other side focus on the year 2027--10 years from now--when, guess what, that is the year past the sunset of tax cuts on the individual side. Focus on the years the cuts are in effect, and you will see the middle class are really winners. There is no question about it if you focus on it.

I ask unanimous consent that this report, ``A Distribution of Returns by the Size of the Tax Change for the Conference Agreement for H.R. 1, the `Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,' '' by the Joint Committee on Taxation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a longtime member of the Senate family who is concluding his tenure with us as this session comes to a close. His last day of service in the U.S. Senate will be December 22.

Steve Johnson, a resident of Annandale, VA, and a native of Freehold, NJ, is retiring as the manager of the Senate Dining Room after 22 years of service.

Steve has managed the Senate Dining Room with hospitality, professionalism, and graciousness. He is extremely knowledgeable about the history of the Senate Dining Room and has introduced many of our guests to the stained-glass George Washington Memorial Window, which is often the focal point for visitors.

The window was purchased by the Federal Government for the Capitol in 1910 from the artist, Maria Herndl, for $1,000. The window's Revolutionary War scene shows President George Washington on his white horse conversing with Marquis de LaFayette and Baron von Steuben, the drillmaster of the American Army. I only know the story behind the painting because Steve told me.

Steve sure knows his history, but his primary focus has always been on his team and the Members of this body. Under Steve's leadership, the Senate Dining Room has been an ideal venue for conducting the important business of the U.S. Senate. Throughout his career, he has been responsible for overseeing and implementing the requests of Members of the U.S. Senate and has done so with efficiency, poise, and thoughtfulness.

Steve has always been resourceful and, at times, creative. Once, a former Senator who, at the time, happened to be the Vice President of the United States, ordered a lunch that had not been on the Senate Dining Room menu for several years, but thanks to Steve's ingenuity, Vice President Joe Biden enjoyed his chopped salad immensely.

On another occasion, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist stopped by the Senate Dining Room after a long day on Capitol Hill and ordered chocolate chip cookies and milk.

The cookies were not on the menu, nor were they in the kitchen, but they still showed up at the Chief Justice's table, thanks to Steve's quick thinking and resourcefulness.

Remarkably, during his Senate service, Steve also found the time to train and compete in 18 marathons. He has qualified and run the Boston Marathon seven times, and I hear that more marathons are in his future.

On behalf of myself and my colleagues, I wish to express our deep affection and gratitude to Steve Johnson for his 22 years of faithful service to the U.S. Senate. We will miss him dearly. We wish Steve and Joanne, his wife of 32 years, a happy and healthy retirement.

Madam President, before I turn to the main portion of my remarks, I would be remiss if I failed to recognize two staffers who were instrumental in helping us pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act earlier this month--James Williams, my senior policy adviser, and Nick Clason, a talented young staffer. Both worked long hours to help make tax reform a reality. I wanted to take just a brief moment to recognize them for the late nights they spent helping me to hash out the details of this bill. They are some of the hardest working members of my staff, and I hope they know how much I appreciate them.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate, recognize, and acknowledge the longtime public service that Donald Harlan Hansen has provided to the State of Utah.

This month, Donald Hansen will officially retire as the civil litigation chief for the Salt Lake County district attorney. He has worked for the district attorney since 2001, where he served as lead counsel in jury and bench trials before State and Federal courts and countless administrative proceedings.

Prior to his work with the Salt Lake County district attorney, he worked for the Utah Attorney General, in which capacity he served as litigation counsel for critical legal cases throughout the State. Utah- born and bred, Donald graduated from the University of Utah before obtaining his law degree from the S.J. Quinney College of Law.

Donald has been published in many legal proceedings and is admitted to practice law before the Utah Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, the Oregon Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Donald currently lives in the Mill Creek area of Salt Lake and is the father of four children and the grandfather of 12. He is a dedicated public servant, and I wish him the very best in his retirement.

Mr. President, last week, the Senate came another step closer to providing real tax relief to the middle class and providing a much needed boost to our economy. Yes, I am talking about the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

That bill spent years in the making. As my chief legislative focus for many years, tax reform is not some off-the-cuff effort. No, we have been researching, holding dozens of hearings, commissioning bipartisan working groups, and working with our friends on the other side of the Capitol and down the street at the White House for some time now.

This bill is going to put another $2,200 in the pockets of the average American family. This bill is going to boost the economy. It is going to grow jobs and finally help end the wage stagnation we have been faced with for years.

This bill is going to unleash the American spirit, bringing businesses back home where they started and encouraging other businesses to both come from abroad, as well as to grow from within. Once again, America will be open for business.

I have not been alone in this process though, not by a long shot. In fact, tax reform has been a priority for many of my colleagues, including some who are no longer serving. I am talking, of course, about people like Congressman Dave Camp and Senator Max Baucus, who did a lot to move this effort forward. I feel gratified to have been here and to have worked with my colleagues to get this far.

As efforts this year began in earnest, we set out to build on the work of our former colleagues and to give low- and middle-income Americans some much needed relief and to give our country an opportunity to compete in the global economy. Our bill will do that, but as we all know, these great reforms are not quite yet promised to the American people. There is still work to do as we work to iron out our differences with the House and make sure every section of this bill is ready to be eased into law or passed into law.

That said, I think we deserve to celebrate a little bit and, more importantly, to thank everyone for their work to get us to this point. So many people--both in and out of Congress--have worked hard to get us this far, and I want to express my appreciation for their efforts. Of course, I can't thank everyone in a single floor speech, but I do want to thank some who may be within earshot of this Chamber.

First and foremost, I need to thank Secretary Mnuchin and Director Cohn for their commitment to this effort and their help in getting it done. It is good to finally have an administration that is willing to lead out on tax reform. I also want to thank the distinguished majority leader who also did so much to secure the details of the bill and shepherd it through the Senate. Furthermore, I want to thank Chairman Brady and Speaker Ryan over in the House of Representatives, as well. They, too, have been great partners and leaders in this endeavor.

I also need to thank the staff from the leader's office, including Sharon Soderstrom, Brandan Dunn, Antonio Ferrier, Hazen Marshall, Erica Suares, Terry Van Doren, Don Stewart, and Jane Lee.

Of course, I want to thank the Members of the Senate Finance Committee who put in countless days, weeks, and months in preparing this legislation and helping to get it passed. All of our majority Members contributed greatly to this process, and I am most grateful.

I also want to thank the tax legislative assistants from each of the committee members who helped to craft this bill; namely, Chris Allen, Sam Beaver, Joseph Boddicker, Chris Conlin, Shay Hawkins, Randy Herndon, Bart Massey, Monica McGuire, Mike Quickel, Zachary Rudisill, Andrew Siracuse, Robert Sneeden, Derek Theurer, and Mark Warren, all of whom did an outstanding job in helping us to produce this bill.

I also thank the committee's legislative directors: Charles Cogar, Ken Flanz, Chris Gillott, Brad Grantz, Amber Kirchhoefer, Kurt Kovarik, Jessica McBride, Sarah Paul, Landon Stropko, Jay Sulzmann, Stephen Tausend, Pam Thiessen, and Christopher Toppings.

In addition to all of the Senators and staff on the Finance Committee, I need to thank some others. As we all know, this process has been a joint effort with our friends on the Budget Committee. I need to thank Senator Enzi, once again, for his leadership on that committee to give us the reconciliation instruction that made this all possible. Additionally, I would like to thank members of his staff, including Joe Brenckle, Jim Neill, Betsy McDonnell, Matt Giroux, Paul Vinovich, Becky Cole, Eric Ueland, Thomas Fueller, and the rest of the Budget Committee team.

Closer to home, I thank the staff of the Finance Committee, who have done so much of the heavy lifting here. I need to single out Mark Prater, my chief tax counsel, who has served the committee for decades, and whose knowledge and expertise on these matters is recognized by everyone here and by pretty much everyone everywhere else. I also express my thanks to the rest of my committee tax staff: Jennifer Acuna, Tony Coughlan, Christopher Hanna, Alex Monie, Eric Oman, Marty Pippins, Preston Rutledge, and Nick Wyatt.

Additionally, I need to thank my staff director, Jay Khosla, who quarterbacked the staff through this whole ordeal and who has spent many years with me as we have laid the groundwork and started construction on this undertaking. I want to thank the other members of my senior team as well, including Matt Hoffmann, Jeff Wrase, Julia Lawless, Jennifer Kuskowski, Chris Armstrong, and Bryan Hickman. I need to thank the communications staff on the committee: Katie Niederee, Nicole Hager, and Joshua Blume.

I also need to thank a couple of former staff members: Chris Campbell, my former staff director, who worked for years on this effort. While he is now at Treasury, I am sure he is celebrating right now along with us. I would also like to give a thank-you to Jim Lyons, my tax counsel, who, unfortunately, passed away a little over a year ago. He contributed greatly to this effort for a number of years, and his steady presence has definitely been missed.

Other bodies deserve our thanks as well. Tom Barthold and his team at the Joint Committee on Taxation made themselves available at all hours to help us get this bill written and ready to pass, as did the staff at the legislative counsel's office, led by Mark McGunagle and Jim Fransen, as well as those who work with Elizabeth MacDonough in the Parliamentarian's office.

I am so grateful to all of you for your sacrifices and talents that have allowed us to craft this impressive package.

Unfortunately, though, there are too many people to thank in a single floor speech. So, please, let me express my gratitude to the countless individuals who have helped in this endeavor over the years. This would not have been possible without you.

Before I close, I would like to reiterate that we are not yet there though. I know I will not rest and that I can count on the rest of you to keep going until we have this over the finish line. We are so close to finally giving the American people the Tax Code, and, in turn, the economic growth not only they but their children and grandchildren deserve. It is my solemn commitment to keep working and get this done for all of us.

I yield the floor.

The Senator is correct. The intent of the provision is to exclude all amounts paid or accrued for services costs with no markup. Thus amounts paid or accrued in that account would be excluded from the base erosion anti-abuse tax. Other accounts related to the same transaction may or may not be excepted from this tax.

Similarly, it is the intent that for purposes of the base erosion anti-abuse tax that the business judgment rule will not prevent an amount from being excluded under the act.

I would like to thank my friend from Ohio for his leadership on international tax issues, especially since he joined this committee. I look forward to continuing to work with him on these important issues.

Mr. President, with passage of this bill, we are another step closer to providing real tax relief to the middle class and providing a much-needed boost to our economy.

Today's events have been years in the making. This has been my chief legislative focus for many years, and it has been a priority for many of my colleagues as well, including some that are no longer serving. I am talking, of course, about people like Dave Camp and Senator Max Baucus, who did a lot to move this effort forward. I feel gratified to have been here and to have worked with my colleagues to get this far.

As efforts this year began earnest, we set out to give low- and middle-income Americans some much-needed relief and to give our country an opportunity to compete in the global economy.

This bill will do that. With passage of this bill, American families will have bigger paychecks and better wages. Our employers will have more favorable conditions to invest in expansion, grow their businesses, and create more jobs right here in the United States.

So many people both in and out of Congress have worked hard to get us to this point, and I want to express my appreciation for their efforts. Of course, I can't thank everyone in a single floor speech, but I do want to thank some who may be within earshot at the moment.

First and foremost, I want to thank the members of the Senate Finance Committee, who put in countless days, weeks, and months in preparing this legislation and helping to get it passed. All of our majority members contributed greatly to this process, and I am most grateful.

I also want to thank the distinguished majority leader who also did so much to secure the details of the bill and shepherd it through the Senate.

I want to thank Chairman Brady and Speaker Ryan over in the House of Representatives. They, too, have been great partners in this endeavor.

Of course, I need to thank Secretary Mnuchin and Director Cohn for their commitment to this effort and their help in getting it done.

I want to thank the staff of the Finance Committee, who have done so much of the heavy lifting here. I need to single out Mark Prater, my chief tax counsel, who has served the committee

for decades now and whose knowledge and expertise on these matters is recognized by everyone here and pretty much everyone everywhere else. Thank you, as well, to the rest of my committee tax staff: Jennifer Acuna, Tony Coughlan, Christopher Hanna, Alex Monie, Eric Oman, Marty Pippins, Preston Rutledge, and Nick Wyatt.

I need to thank my staff director, Jay Khosla, who quarterbacked the staff through this whole ordeal and who has spent many years with me as we have laid the groundwork and started construction on this undertaking. I want to thank the other members of my senior team as well, including Matt Hoffman, Jeff Wrase, Julia Lawless, Jennifer Kuskowski, Chris Armstrong, and Bryan Hickman. I need to thank the communications staff on the committee: Katie Niederee, Nicole Hager, and Joshua Blume.

I also need to thank a couple of former staff members. Chris Campbell, my former staff director, worked for years on this effort, and while, he is now at Treasury, I am sure he is celebrating on his own today. I would also like to give a thank you to Jim Lyons, my tax counsel who, unfortunately, passed away a little over a year ago. He contributed greatly to this effort for a number of years, and his steady presence has definitely been missed.

Beyond my own staff, I want to thank the tax legislative assistants from each of the committee members who helped to craft this bill, namely, Chris Allen, Sam Beaver, Joseph Boddicker, Chris Conlin, Shay Hawkins, Randy Herndon, Bart Massey, Monica McGuire, Mike Quickel, Zacshary Rudisill, Andrew Siracuse, Robert Sneeden, Derek Theurer, and Mark Warren, all of whom did an outstanding job in helping us to produce this bill.

I also want to thank the committee's legislative directors: Charles Cogar, Ken Flanz, Chris Gillott, Brad Grantz, Amber Kirchhoefer, Kurt Kovarik, Jessica McBride, Sarah Paul, Landon Stropko, Jay Sulzmann, Stephen Tausend, Pam Thiessen, and Christopher Toppings.

I also need to thank the staff from the leader's office, including Brendan Dunn, Antonia Ferrier, Hazen Marshall, Erica Suares, Terry Van Doren, Don Stewart, and Jane Lee.

This process has been a joint effort with our friends on the Budget Committee, and I need to thank Senator Enzi, once again, for his leadership on that committee to give us the reconciliation instruction that made this possible. Additionally, I would like to thank members of his staff, including: Joe Brenckle, Jim Neill, Betsy McDonnell, Matt Giroux, Paul Vinovich, Becky Cole, Eric Ueland, Thomas Fueller, and the rest of the Budget Committee team.

Other bodies deserve our thanks as well. Tom Barthold and his team at the Joint Committee on Taxation made themselves available at all hours to help us get the bill written and ready to pass. As did the staff at the legislative counsel's office, led by Mark McGunagle and Jim Fransen and their whole team and those who work with Elizabeth McDounagh in the Parliamentarian's office.

There are too many people to thank in a single floor speech, but, I am very grateful for the countless individuals who have in this endeavor over the years. We are not there yet, but we are getting closer.

I look forward to moving this effort through the next steps and to working with my colleagues on other challenges that lie ahead.

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

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

Mr. President, I have sat here and listened to Democrats, year after year, talk about how they are so much more committed to the middle class and to the poor, as they have driven us right into bankruptcy.

Instead of trying to work on these matters so that we are not driven into bankruptcy, it is more and more spending, more and more Federal Government, more and more regulations, and more and more controls, all of which tend to make us less and less efficient, less and less successful, less and less able to do the will of the people, less and less able to really do the things we have been sent here to do.

Now we are having a lot of complaining about what is going on right now, but, to make a long story short, the Democrats are pushing a financial system that was bound to take us right into bankruptcy. We might have had 2 more years where payments could be made, but we have gone right straight to hell as far as being able to handle the matters that are so important to every one of us in this country.

Now, I have to admit that our side has some flaws, too. Some of our people think that we should do a better job without any money, or that we should do a better job without any increase in taxes, or that we should do a better job without the Federal Government. Both sides have been in error. Both sides have been, from time to time, wrong.

But I have to say, as a former Democrat when I was coming up in Pittsburgh, PA, when I went to Brigham Young University, by the end of my time at Brigham Young University, I thought: My gosh, how could I have ever believed this stuff--which is more and more government, more and more spending, more and more bureaucracy, more and more controls over all of our lives, and less and less freedom.

I can remember the days when we couldn't get the other side to work as hard as we should on national security issues, which were critical.

Both sides have room to grow. Both sides have room to improve. Each side could do a better job here, and I have lived for the day when we both could work together, arm in arm, for the betterment of this country. But the betterment of this country isn't to go to socialized medicine, which is where the Democrats actually took us, until we finally pulled them back a little bit. Now, they had the help of some Republicans to do that, but the fact of the matter is that they were moving us right to socialized medicine, which really has never worked anywhere. It is as though they prey on the poor as though they are the only ones who could help them, when in fact they are part of the reason we are poor.

The government cannot do everything. The government should not do everything. We, as a people, have to help ourselves and do a lot to help our country in the process.

I get a little disgusted sometimes when I see the lack of communication between the two sides, the lack of working together. One side believes the Federal Government is the last answer to everything. My gosh, you have to be a real raving idiot to believe that. Well, maybe I shouldn't have put it that way. The other side sometimes has trouble seeing how we should help the poor and help those who are less fortunate than we are. But we have a lot of people on the Republican side who have spent a lot of time trying to help the poor, trying to get this country going again, trying to get the economy on top, and trying to get it so that we really can help the poor and not just mouth off about it.

I am very concerned because, if we don't get together and start working together, it is going to get worse and worse and worse. But I think the crocodile tears on the other side, as we have watched them over the last year pushing us more and more toward socialized medicine--something that will not work, one-size-fits-all government programs, with no real restraint of growth or spending, just more and more buying of votes. I come away pretty disconsolate and concerned about the direction in which we are going.

Both sides have enduring pluses, and both sides are wrong in some ways. Sooner or later, we have to find some way of assisting the greatest country in the world--which has the greatest economic system in the world, which believes in the free market system--and to do so without total government control.

My friends on the other side like that government control because it means more control by them. We dislike it because we think they shouldn't have this kind of control. We know that is not good for the country. It is not good for the people. It is not good for our future. It is not good for our economy, but that is where we are. I would like to see us someday just really start working in the best interest of the country and a little less in the best interest of our respective parties.

I am concerned about where we are going. I am concerned about how little effort is being put forth to try and bring us together. I am concerned about the itty-bitty, stupid, partisan infighting that goes on here constantly. It is not all bad, but it is not all good either. I am very concerned about a lot of this driven by a media that is one- sided, that really doesn't tell the truth, that really doesn't help us in this country--everybody--to know what is wrong. I think the media has gotten better in recent years, but it has pretty well been one- sided. I don't think anybody with brains would deny that.

I am really concerned because I believe we have great people here. There are some wonderful people on the Democratic side. We know we have a lot of good people on the Republican side. We have to somehow find a way of bridging the gap and getting together and making this country solid, dependable, economically sound, and deserving of being called the greatest country in the world. I think we can do that, but we can't do it if we don't work together. We can't do it if we can't put aside Republican and Democratic itty-bitty problems and work together. We can't do that if we don't care. We can't do it if we keep having the ridiculous, stupid politics that go on around here year after year. It is not all bad, but it is certainly not all good either. I hope that somehow the more reasonable people on both sides will get together and start to work together.

I remember when I became chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee in 1981 with the advent of Ronald Reagan. The Democrats had been in control for years, and they knew it. My gosh, when I got here, there were 60 Democrats in the Senate--62 Democrats, 38 Republicans. It was hard to get a point of view across; that is, the Republicans' point of view. Then Ronald Reagan came along. I have to say, it brought an awareness to the public that something was wrong here, and he was able to bring us together.

I saw some of the greatest Senators over the years on both sides work together. I saw Daniel Patrick Moynihan come here and work with people like me. Some mentioned Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch. When I became chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Kennedy had been chairman of the Judiciary Committee and came over to become my ranking member. I have to give him credit because he was willing to give and to work together. He always had to have his share of whatever it was, but he did move. He did come over. He was willing to. Some point to that particular Hatch-Kennedy period as a pretty good period at the time in the U.S. Senate. Certainly Ted Kennedy did. He was calling me from the Cape before he died, knowing I cared for him, knowing we were people who fought for very hard battles against each other, from time to time, but who really respected each other because we both believed in our respective sides, and we were willing to stand up for our particular beliefs. I don't see as much of that today as I did then. Maybe I am shortsighted. I don't know, but I don't think so.

I am very concerned that we are not doing the job for the American people in our little bitty fights that we have around here that don't amount to a hill of beans. I am somewhat depressed because of the way things are going right

now. I can't say I am discouraged because I keep thinking we can come back, we can do better, we can witness things, and we can find ways of getting together. We can work together, but so far I haven't seen that, not for a number of years. We can blame both parties for it, I am sure. One party believes the Federal Government is the almighty blessing to all of this, while the other believes, hey, we need not allow a central government to control everything. It is good that we have two differences of opinion in these areas. I don't think it hurts the country at all to have differing opinions, but it does hurt the country when one side thinks their opinion is the only opinion that should be given any credence or consideration. I have seen a lot of that around here. Both sides are at fault, by the way. I am very concerned about it.

I look over at my colleague from Oregon. When he was chairman, I was his ranking member. When I am chairman, he is my ranking member. We have gotten along well. He is a proud liberal, and deservedly so, and I am a proud conservative. I think most people would say deservedly so. We are two people who can make this place sane and who have been working assiduously together to try to help our country.

I see these two-bit, partisan politics arising all the time around here, and I don't think we benefit from it. In fact, I know we don't benefit from it. I am not meaning to blame anybody, but I think we ought to all do some self-awareness studies and determine what role we have in the deterioration of what has always been great about the U.S. Senate. What role do we have? Are we living a plus role or are we living a minus role? It would be wonderful if we could all live plus roles.

I like my Democratic colleagues, every one of them. There is not one of them I don't care for. I am hoping we can start working together and open our eyes and our hearts and our minds to some of the points of view of the other side. It is hard to do sometimes because we have people around here who are so partisan that they think there is only one side. I can tell you, there are two sides.

I remember the day when Republicans wouldn't vote for any social spending program, and I remember the day when Democrats thought everything should be a social spending program and didn't care where the moneys were coming from or if they were there at all. I have seen both sides, both extremes, throughout my 41 years in the U.S. Senate. I have also seen times when leadership, true leadership, has brought us together, where consideration was given to the Democratic side, consideration was given to the Republican side, and we worked out our difficulties. We worked together. We didn't mouth off all the time against the other side. Naturally, I like those days better than what we have today.

Yes, sir.

I didn't yield to you. I am saying I will yield for a question.

I felt bad about that.

I would like to be able to look at that particular analysis. There are other analyses that indicate that, yes, we can do better in this bill but also would disagree with that one. I don't happen to have my hands on those documents at this time.

To make a long story short, we know you can come up with any outside liberal faction and come up with criticisms of anything around here, and we also know we can find some outside conservative factions that would cause most of us to cringe and wonder what in the world is going on.

I can tell you this. I know what is going on; that is, we are spending ourselves into bankruptcy, and we are not doing a good job here. We are not watching the moneys of the American people. In fact, one reason we can't watch them very well is because they are all spent. We continuously have people come to the floor and act like they are better than others because they want to spend all our money to help the poor. I would love to help the poor. I grew up in a very poor family-- poor in the sense of money, great in the sense of everything else.

Let's be honest about it. We are in trouble. This country is in deep debt. You don't help the poor by not solving the problems of debt too. You don't help the poor by continually pushing more and more liberal programs through that don't do the job anyway. You don't help the poor by continually pushing programs that really don't work.

For a question.

If you have a question----

I got the point.

Let me take the floor back.

Nobody believes more in the CHIP program than I. I invented it. I was the one who wrote it. Kennedy came over and became the one who helped put it through.

Of course I do. I don't think I do everything on my own here. I have to have good Democratic friends to do it. I don't think you do either. Let me tell you something. We are going to do CHIP. There is no question about it, in my mind. It has to be done the right way. The reason CHIP is having trouble is because we don't have any money anymore. We just add more and more spending and more and more spending, and you can look at the rest of the bill for the more and more spending.

I happen to think that CHIP has done a terrific job for people who have really needed the help. I have taken the position around here for my whole Senate service that I believe in helping those who cannot help themselves but would if they could. I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who will not help themselves--who will not lift a finger--and expect the Federal Government to do everything.

Unfortunately, the liberal philosophy has created millions of people that way, who believe everything that they are or ever hope to be depends upon the Federal Government rather than on the opportunities that this great country grants them.

I have to say that I think it is pretty hard to argue against these comments because, if you look it over, for decades now, we have been spending more than we have, building more and more Federal programs, some of which are lousy, some of which are well-intended, and some of which are actually good, like the CHIP program. We are going to get CHIP through. There is no question about that. I am going to see that it gets through.

I will yield for a question.

I was the one who pulled Kennedy into it.

I wrote the doggone bill.

I don't intend to let that happen. I think that we will get CHIP taken care of and, hopefully, a number of other things, too, but we are going to have to resolve some of these big problems around here, it seems to me, before we do get those problems solved.

But to prey upon the CHIP program as though it is the be- all and end-all of everything here in every aspect of this debate is not quite right either.

All I can say is that I don't know anyone here who is not going to support CHIP when we bring it up, and I am one who wants to make sure that we bring it up. I appreciate my friend's feelings on this matter.

Look, I like my friend from Ohio. He is sincere; he is dedicated; he is liberal and well-meaning, but I would like to see him be a little more concerned about everyone else.

Let me just finish by saying that I am happy to be in this body. It is the greatest deliberative body in the world, but we are not living up to our potential, and we are not doing the job. We are getting into these little snits and fights around here that don't amount to a hill of beans in the final analysis. I would like to see us all get together and start running this country in a good manner--living within our means and finding ways of increasing our economy so that we can take care of the poor better than we are right now and do the things that we all know we should be doing.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have listened to the minority leader's remarks. If anybody believes that we are going to be able to work together closely when they just want a bill for the Federal Government at all costs--they had us right there on the cusp of socialism just a month ago, and we are still right on the cusp of socialism. I hate to say it, but our Democratic friends are pushing us toward socialism, which has never worked anywhere in the world, and it is not going to work here. Their answer to everything is big government.

There are two different points of view here. I have to tell you I used to be on their side when I was a young fellow. I was raised in poverty. I came up the hard way. I learned a trade. I became a journeyman metal lather, which was one of the most skilled trades at the time.

I have to say that these haunting refrains were used by Democrats back then, too, but look at this country and the mess it is in, and it is in a mess because of their philosophy. We have to change it. I admit, with him, that the business community isn't always right, and they are not always the best to spend our money, but they are sure a lot better than government spending it all the time. So much for that.

The Senate will soon vote on a motion to proceed to legislation to reform our Nation's broken Tax Code and to provide significant relief for tens of millions of middle-class families.

Members from both parties have worked for years on this effort. As we move to consider this legislation, we will take another step toward accomplishing what has--until recently, anyway--been a bipartisan goal. I want to thank all of those who have helped us advance this process, especially the members and staff of the Finance Committee, who have worked tirelessly to get us to this point. I also want to thank our distinguished majority leader, Senator McConnell, for his work and leadership on this as well.

Of course, we are not there yet. We have a number of additional steps to take, including today's vote. I don't want to put any carts ahead of any horses, but I am optimistic that we can get a positive outcome today.

Our tax reform bill is crafted with the primary purpose of providing tax relief to the middle class and growth to our economy. To accomplish these goals, the bill lowers individual tax rates across the board. The bill also expands the zero tax bracket by nearly doubling the standard deduction, doubling the child tax credit, and increasing the child tax credit refundability, all of which, combined, will eliminate income tax liability for many hard-working American families and significantly cut taxes for tens of millions of middle-class taxpayers. That sounds like the right thing to do to me.

Some examples, I think, can be illustrative here. Under our bill, a family of four making the U.S. median family income of around $73,000 a year will see their taxes go down by more than $2,000 a year. That is a savings of more than $180 a month. Overall, this represents a nearly 60-percent reduction in that family's tax liability. A single parent with one child making $41,000 a year, under the bill, will pay about one-quarter of the Federal income taxes he or she may pay today, an annual reduction of almost $1,400. Now, that is real money for these families. It will help them to make car payments, to pay their rent or mortgages, to bring down credit card balances, or to increase their ability to save for the future.

In addition to reducing the tax burden on low-income to middle-income families, the changes in our bill will make filing taxes much simpler for most of these taxpayers. According to JCT, or the Joint Committee on Taxation, more than 9 in 10 American families will opt for the standard deduction under this legislation, avoiding altogether the difficult and complicated process of itemizing deductions. This means less time and money spent on tax compliance and preparation for millions of middle-class taxpayers. It may hurt the legal profession, but it is going to give freedom to the American people.

The bill also repeals one of the most regressive taxes in American history--the ObamaCare individual mandate tax, which overwhelmingly burdens middle-income and low-income families. In fact, 80 percent of the families that pay the tax make less than $50,000 per year. Yet this repeal has been the source of much consternation for my friends on the other side of the aisle. I will have more to say on that in a moment.

For most small businesses that pay taxes on the owners' individual returns, or passthroughs, the bill provides significant relief in the form of a simple tax reduction applied to qualified business income. This will reduce the overall tax burden for passthrough businesses, which are the primary engines of our job creation in the United States. In addition, our bill helps Main Street businesses by enhancing expensing and expanding the availability of simplified cash accountability. All told, this means more expansion, more investment, and more jobs for U.S. workers employed by small businesses.

Make no mistake, this bill is pro-small business, which is why the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the largest small business association in the country, has enthusiastically expressed its support for our legislation. They are not stupid. They are brilliant people. They know how badly the small business community has been treated by our tax writers over the years, and they are looking forward to this legislation passing.

It should probably go without saying at this point that the United States currently has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, and, as a result, we are seeing businesses flee our country for more favorable tax conditions overseas, while others are getting purchased by foreign companies. Some of them are just giving up and letting foreign companies take them over. That is not good for American workers, and that is not good for America.

Former Presidents Clinton and Obama have spoken in favor of lowering the corporate tax rate to allow our country to be more globally competitive. That sentiment has been shared by countless Democrats in this Chamber, including the current ranking member on the Finance Committee and the Senate Minority Leader. With this bill, we are taking their advice by lowering the corporate tax rate to 20 percent.

We also shift to a more territorial system of international tax-- another idea that was explicitly endorsed in a bipartisan working group report, coauthored by my good friend Senator Schumer, by the way, who just spoke here. This shift is paid for largely through the use of a ``deemed repatriation,'' another idea supported by Democrats in recent years. We are creating both incentives and penalties to prevent base erosion, a goal that has become clearly bipartisan during the recent waves of corporate inversions.

Long story short, there is quite a bit in this bill that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to support. Of course, anyone who gets their information solely from the statements and talking points from our friends on the other side would never get that.

Over the next few days, I expect we will hear quite a few misleading claims, both about the bill and about the process which led us here. For example, I think we will hear that this bill is just a massive giveaway to the so-called rich. That is always the claim of the Democrats: It is a gift to the so-called rich. Gosh, give me a break. I get so tired of that phony, lousy argument that they make all the time. They have hurt the middle class so badly in this country; it is unbelievable.

My colleagues will make the claim that this is a massive giveaway to the so-called rich even though they have the same data from the Joint Committee on Taxation, which clearly shows that middle-class taxpayers will receive the largest proportional tax cuts under the bill and that none of the existing tax burden will be shifted downward from those at the top. In fact, those in the highest bracket, according to JCT, or the Joint Committee on Taxation, will pay a higher percentage of the overall tax burden than they do now.

I expect we will hear that, by repealing the individual mandate tax, the bill will be taking people's health insurance away and raising taxes on the

poor. That claim will be made despite confirmation from congressional scorekeepers that nothing--nothing--in the bill removes or limits anyone's access to health insurance. The approach they are taking toward health insurance will put us into a socialized medicine situation overnight. If anybody thinks that is a great idea, I ask them to look at the socialized medicine countries and compare them to what we have been able to have. Instead, JCT and CBO predict that, with no individual mandate, people will choose to not get health insurance even if they still have access to premium subsidies, employer-provided plans, or even free health coverage through Medicaid. This bill provides choice. It doesn't take anything away from those individuals.

We can quibble with that conclusion and question whether tens of millions of people who currently have health insurance--including a few million who are currently getting it for free--will suddenly opt to go uninsured once the mandate penalty is zeroed out. Given that most observers have concluded that the mandate has essentially failed to draw enough participants into the healthcare market to keep premiums from skyrocketing, there is room for questioning whether the scorekeepers are right on that score. However, even if they are 100 percent correct, no one will lose their health insurance under this bill when the mandate is repealed. Anyone going uninsured will be doing so voluntarily. We are not kicking anyone off their insurance by zeroing out the individual mandate penalty, and it is a blatant distortion of reality to claim otherwise.

Similarly, no one's taxes will go up if the mandate is zeroed out. True enough, our scorekeepers have produced distribution tables showing an uptick in taxes at the low end of the income spectrum due to decreased utilization of premium tax credits under ObamaCare. My colleagues, I am sure, will talk about this at length as well. However, I would like to have one of them explain how a person's voluntary decision to forego a tax subsidy amounts to a tax hike. So far, I haven't heard a serious attempt at such an explanation. In fact, during our recent markup, when the chief of staff of JCT sat at a table and told my colleagues that no one will owe a dime in additional taxes as a result of the individual mandate repeal, none of my colleagues disputed this conclusion. Instead, they opted to ignore it, even after they were shown a JCT table showing that, if the behavioral effects of the mandate repeal are removed from the equation--as they should be when we are talking about taxes owed--every income group will see their taxes go down under this bill. I hope our colleagues and those watching will remember these facts when they are evaluating the claims being made by some on the other side.

We have a good bill here, under the circumstances, and I believe Members of both parties, if politics were removed from consideration, could support it. We have gotten significant support throughout the business community, with associations and companies from almost every industry and sector publicly in support of the reforms in this bill.

I know some of my Republican colleagues have concerns, and I have been committed to working with them to see if improvements can be made, and, as this process moves forward, we are going to have to make a few more changes. This, of course, is how the legislative process works. Our process is designed to produce legislation that reflects the combined views and interests of a majority of Senators and, more importantly, the constituents they represent.

As with any legislative endeavor of real significance, the perfect should not be considered the enemy of the good. As I have said before, I have been around long enough to know that anyone demanding perfection when it comes to major legislation is bound to be waiting a very, very long time and likely will not accomplish much.

Before I close, I want to underscore how much of a once-in-a generation opportunity this is. We need to get this done. The costs of failure and continuing with the status quo are just too high. The American people deserve a tax system that provides greater opportunity, a stronger economy, and better jobs. We need a tax code designed to work for the world of 2017 and beyond. Our bill will accomplish these goals. We need to take this next step so that we can continue the work. So I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to proceed.

I yield the floor.

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