[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15081-15098]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018--MOTION TO 
                                PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1519, 
which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 165, S. 1519, a bill to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018 for military 
     activities of the Department of Defense, for military 
     construction, and for defense activities of the Department of 
     Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such 
     fiscal year, and for other purposes.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


               Measure Placed on the Calendar--H.R. 3354

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the 
desk that is due for a second reading.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the bill by 
title for the second time.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3354) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and for other 
     purposes.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in order to place the bill on the 
calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further 
proceedings.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection having been heard, the 
bill will be placed on the calendar.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, later today, I look forward to joining 
members of the Senate Finance Committee, the House Ways and Means 
Committee, and other congressional leaders in unveiling a unified 
framework for fixing our Nation's broken Tax Code. It is an idea that 
can bring much needed relief to middle-class families and small 
businesses and help keep more jobs right here in America. It is the 
result of a lot of hard work and input from Members, committees, 
staffs, and the administration, to name a few, and I want to thank them 
again for their continued diligence on behalf of our country.
  This framework is focused on supporting American jobs, while making 
taxes fairer, and on growing families' paychecks. It is a refreshing 
change from our current outdated Tax Code, which for too long hasn't 
worked for many Americans.
  The current code forces individuals, families, and small businesses 
to navigate a web of schedules, deductions, and penalties. Rates are 
too high. Incentives often make little to no sense. Some actually 
encourage companies to ship American jobs overseas. Moreover, for 8 
years under the Obama administration, our economy grew at a sluggish 
rate--never living up to its real potential. Too many Americans 
struggled to get ahead, many living paycheck to paycheck. It is time 
for a significant change in favor of families and jobs.
  This is our once-in-a-generation opportunity to fundamentally rethink 
our Tax Code. We can unleash the economy--promoting growth, attracting 
jobs, and improving American competitiveness in the global market. 
Instead of sending jobs overseas, we can modernize our Tax Code to help 
bring strong investment and good-paying jobs home and keep them here. 
Through this framework, we can lower taxes for individuals and 
families, so hard-working Americans are able to keep more of their 
hard-earned money.

[[Page 15082]]

  Later this afternoon, President Trump will bring our shared vision of 
tax reform to the people of Indiana and to Americans more broadly. He 
will explain his support for putting Americans across the country on a 
more level playing field, because when they are, they can win.
  I thank the President and his team for their efforts to develop the 
framework. Together, we can continue that work to bring relief and 
growth to the people of our States, such as the workers, small 
businesses, and families of Kentucky, and promote economic growth in 
America.
  Using the framework we will release today as a roadmap, the Senate 
Finance Committee, under Chairman Hatch's leadership, will continue to 
hold a series of hearings to discuss how to make taxes lower, simpler, 
and fairer for middle-class families and for small businesses. Like its 
counterpart in the House, the Ways and Means Committee, the Senate 
Finance Committee will continue working to provide much needed relief 
to encourage jobs and investments to come back to the United States. 
The work of these committees will help build a stronger country.
  Many of our Democratic colleagues have voiced support for overhauling 
our Tax Code. Throughout this process, I hope they will choose to work 
with us in a serious way.
  A fundamental overhaul of our Tax Code is a daunting task. We have a 
lot of work ahead, but America deserves it--like the hard-working men 
and women of the middle class saving for retirement and the small 
businesses trying to expand and grow and the families hoping to send 
their kids to a good college. These Americans deserve real tax reform. 
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in working from this framework 
to deliver for them.
  Here is the point: It is time to take more money out of Washington's 
pockets and put more of it in the pockets of Americans.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. SCHUMER. Good morning, Mr. President. First, I would like to talk 
about taxes.
  Today, President Trump and Republican leaders will announce several 
proposals as part of their tax plan. According to recent reports, that 
plan will include proposals to repeal the estate tax, lower the rate on 
passthrough entities, lower the top rate, and actually raise the bottom 
tax rate. Each of these proposals would result in a massive windfall 
for the wealthiest Americans and provide almost no relief to middle-
class taxpayers who need it most.
  It seems that President Trump and Republicans have designed their 
plan to be cheered in the country clubs and the corporate boardrooms. 
How does repealing the estate tax help middle-class people?
  Only 5,200 of the wealthiest families in America, couples whose 
estates are worth $11 million, pay the estate tax. Are there any 
middle-class families worth $11 million? Is that the President's 
definition of the middle class?
  The estate tax is skewed to the very wealthiest among us, and they 
are going to repeal it. This is not going to fly with the American 
people, let me tell you.
  Our Republican colleagues tried to do something the public disliked 
on healthcare--taking away benefits, reducing healthcare. Now they are 
trying to do the same thing on taxes, helping the very wealthiest. They 
are going to be in for a rude awakening because the American people are 
going to rise up against this. Over 70 percent of Americans are against 
tax breaks for wealthy Americans and wealthy corporations.
  Lowering the rate on passthrough entities would create a huge 
loophole, allowing very wealthy Americans, such as hedge fund managers, 
to funnel their income through a business entity in order to avoid the 
top bracket and pay a much lower rate. So the upper middle-class family 
making $100,000 or $200,000 or $300,000 can pay 39 percent, but these 
wealthy hedge fund managers, lawyers, and whoever, through a 
passthrough, can pay no corporate tax and then a 25-percent rate on the 
rest of their taxes. Does that help middle-class Americans? Absolutely 
not. Does it help the wealthiest who have the lawyers to set up these 
passthrough entities? Absolutely.
  By lowering the individual top rate, the top 1 percent, who make 
above $490,000 a year, would get a tax break because their rate would 
be lowered. God bless them. They make a lot of money. Do they need a 
tax break? I don't think so.
  President Trump clearly believes, despite his rhetoric, that the 
wealthy in this country deserve another tax cut while middle-class 
families at best get crumbs. Amazingly, the Trump tax plan will even 
include a proposal to increase the bottom tax rate--a punch to the gut 
of working Americans.
  The American people should be able to see the principle behind 
President Trump's tax plan in this one fact. He proposes to cut taxes 
on the highest income brackets and raise them on the lowest. He raises 
the bottom rate and cuts the top rate. This is ``wealthfare''--
``wealthfare''--helping those of great wealth with more tax breaks.
  The American people should be able to see the principle behind 
President Trump's tax plan with little more than an across-the-board 
tax cut for America's millionaires and billionaires. God bless them. I 
am glad we have a lot of rich people in America. I don't begrudge them. 
Many of them have worked very hard to get their money. Some of them get 
it through an estate; so be it. But the wealthiest among us don't need 
a tax break. They are doing great.
  All of the statistics show that those at the highest end are making 
more money than ever before and the middle class is flat or sinking. 
Who needs the break? The Washington Post-ABC poll showed yesterday that 
more than 70 percent of Americans say our tax system already tends to 
favor wealth more than the middle class. This bill makes it much worse.
  One more thing to watch today is whether the President and his 
Republicans provide any details about how they intend to pay for these 
massive cuts. Without these details, I suspect Republicans will turn 
the age-old trick of promising that economic growth will make up for 
the entire difference. Some of them call it dynamic scoring, but that 
name obscures what dynamic scoring really is.
  President Trump calls the media outlets fake news. Dynamic scoring is 
fake math. It is just made-up, fake math to hide another deficit-
busting tax cut to benefit the wealthiest Americans.
  No less of an authority than James Baker, a conservative Republican 
and former Republican Treasury Secretary who led the last successful 
tax reform effort under President Reagan, said:

       We must not let tax revenues decline and worsen the 
     deficit. In other words, tax reform must be revenue neutral 
     and should be judged on its own merits.

  Let's call it the Baker rule--the Jim Baker rule: Tax reform must be 
revenue neutral, judged on its own merits, with no dynamic scoring and 
no fake math.
  I am amazed that President Trump, whenever he talks, says he wants to 
help the middle class, and his plan at best throws crumbs at some 
middle-class people. Some will get a tax increase, especially those in 
high-tax States like New York, but his plan benefits the wealthy.
  Has the President read this plan? Has he been involved in creating 
this plan or is it the people around him--many of them from Wall 
Street--who came up with this plan, and the President doesn't even know 
what it does?
  I will tell you, if he goes to Indiana today and says that his plan 
helps the

[[Page 15083]]

middle class rather than the wealthy, he has it backward. It helps the 
wealthy far more than it helps the middle class.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. President, yesterday the majority announced it would not be 
holding a vote this week on the latest healthcare bill, Graham-Cassidy. 
Every American should breathe a deep sigh of relief.
  The majority has vowed to revisit ACA repeal, maybe even with this 
legislation. But President Trump and our Republican colleagues should 
have learned from these failures that the American people do not want 
to cut healthcare. If they try to do it a third time, they will fail 
again for the simplest reason in politics: The public is against what 
they want to do.
  This administration, which campaigned it is for the people and 
populist, on healthcare is doing what people don't want and on taxes is 
doing what people don't want. What is going on?
  I remind my Republican colleagues that continuing to threaten repeal 
is like hanging a giant sword of Damocles above our Nation's healthcare 
system. It causes great uncertainty in the healthcare market, and it 
leads insurers to raise premiums on average Americans.
  Now, I understand that for political purposes Republicans don't want 
to ever admit that ACA repeal is off the table. They promised it to the 
American people for 7 years but deluded them on what it really meant. 
The average American thought that, if you took ACA off the table, 
premiums would go down and coverage would go up. The bills the 
Republicans have proposed do just the opposite, but I understand why 
they do it. They promised it so often. But those promises have a real 
human consequence in the form of higher costs for everybody. The 
responsibility and the blame for the rate hikes, should they occur--and 
they probably will--will fall squarely on the Republican shoulders. 
President Trump and the Republicans are in charge. Saying, gee, 
something in the past caused it, when they failed to correct it, is not 
going to work.
  My Republican friends, you are no longer in the minority. You are 
running the show. It is your responsibility to help bring premiums 
down. We want to do that and, in fact, there are good bipartisan 
sprouts. Senators Alexander and Murray are very close to a bipartisan 
agreement. Now, we hope out of pique or anger that our Republican 
colleagues will not reject a good bipartisan compromise that helps the 
American people, put together by the chair of the HELP Committee and 
the ranking member.
  I hope and expect the negotiations to pick up right where they left 
off because we Democrats want to work with our Republican colleagues to 
stabilize the markets and lower premiums for millions of Americans. We 
hope our Republican colleagues will not just sit back, repeatedly 
threaten repeal, and watch as millions of Americans pay higher 
healthcare costs. That will be wrong substantively, and, politically, 
it will fall right on their shoulders.
  So I hope we can have the negotiations pick up between Senators 
Murray and Alexander right where they left off. Each of them said they 
were close to an agreement before Chairman Alexander was pulled away by 
Republican leadership.
  Insurers are about to set their rates for the next year, and whether 
we can come together or not could be the difference between a stable 
market and premiums that are hundreds of dollars more expensive. So for 
the sake of the American people, for the sake of turning over a new 
leaf on healthcare, let's work together in a bipartisan way to shore up 
and improve our Nation's healthcare.


          Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Recovery Effort

  Finally, Mr. President, on the crisis in Puerto Rico and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands, Hurricanes Irma and Maria have left the islands--home 
to well over 3 million American citizens--hanging on for dear life. You 
have seen the pictures, and they are devastating. Water, food, diesel, 
power, cell service, medicine, shelter, security, the basic needs of 
human survival are limited and running out in Puerto Rico and the 
Virgin Islands. Diabetic patients who require insulin shots are unable 
to keep their lifesaving medicine refrigerated. Hospitals still lack 
power and running water. This was a catastrophe on an epic scale. It 
may have been one of the worst humanitarian crises within our borders.
  Now, the President has a bully pulpit. More importantly, he is in 
direct control of the vast resources of our Federal Government--the 
military, the Department of Energy, FEMA, USDA, and much more. He can 
direct the attention of all Americans to important issues. Previous 
Presidents have used this platform to focus our attention on disasters 
that strike our country. Barack Obama did it, George Bush did it, Bill 
Clinton did it, George H.W. Bush did it, and Ronald Reagan did it. The 
President can direct resources--boots on the ground and a structure to 
coordinate it all. But a President needs to act aggressively, 
comprehensively, and urgently, and some of that has been lacking with 
this President unfortunately.
  A cursory scroll of President Trump's Twitter feed and public 
comments from the past few weeks does not show him using the power of 
his office to focus our attention on the crisis in Puerto Rico and the 
U.S. Virgin Islands. It has been a week since the storm hit and, as I 
said, his Twitter feed and public comments don't show him using the 
power of the office. When he mentions Puerto Rico, President Trump 
promotes his own administration's efforts and implies that Puerto Rico 
was partially at fault for the devastation they have been suffering. 
The response from the administration needs to get a whole lot better 
fast.
  I spoke to the Governor of Puerto Rico yesterday, and he gave me 
specific items that would provide immediate help. I spoke about them 
yesterday, and I hope the administration acts on them quickly. But most 
importantly, we need the administration to send us an emergency and 
interim aid package to pass, just as we did in the wake of Hurricane 
Harvey. Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands shouldn't have to wait 
a second longer for aid than any other American State or Territory. We 
should take up and pass this package here in the Senate before the week 
is over.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, first I want to join the Democratic leader 
in his comments about the devastation of these hurricanes. This has 
been truly a malign visitation on our country over the last several 
weeks. Florida, Texas, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico have really 
suffered and are suffering. I know that the administration is working 
hard on this, and I commend them for the efforts that they have made.
  I think that now much of our attention is turning to Puerto Rico and 
the Virgin Islands in order to mitigate what is really a humanitarian 
disaster. One difference between those islands and Florida and Texas is 
the fact that they are islands. It is harder to get there. It is harder 
to get aid there. I understand that just this morning the San Juan 
airport was open for the first time, and it has opened in a limited 
way.
  So this is clearly a responsibility that we have as Senators, as 
Members of Congress, and as Americans to reach out to our neighbors in 
a situation such as this. When a crisis hits, it often calls forth the 
best of America, and I believe that is happening right now.


                            Opioid Epidemic

  Mr. President, I want to talk about a different kind of hurricane, a 
slow-motion hurricane. It is a slow-motion hurricane that is sweeping 
our entire country, not just the Southeast. It is sweeping through our 
small towns, our cities, our families, and our schools. It is taking 
lives on a scale that is unprecedented and almost unthinkable.
  I am talking about the hurricane epidemic of opioid abuse and 
overdose deaths. Many of us this week are watching with rapt attention 
Ken Burns' magnificent study of the Vietnam war. We are losing more 
people per year to overdose deaths than were

[[Page 15084]]

lost in the entire Vietnam war. That is one way to think about the 
magnitude of this catastrophe that is striking our country. The problem 
is that it strikes here and there. It strikes a family here and a 
family there, a community here and a community there, but it doesn't 
strike all in one place. So it is not so apparent.
  If we were losing a small city in America of 63,000 people once a 
year, we would be turning ourselves inside out to solve the problem 
that was causing those deaths, and 63,000 people were killed last year 
through overdose deaths. It was almost 400 in my State of Maine. That 
is more than one a day. All indications are that it is increasing--one 
a day. Now, 63,000 is about 7 people an hour--24 hours a day, 365 days 
a year--who are succumbing to this plague. That is the right term for 
it. It is a medieval plague that is afflicting people all over our 
country.
  Lives are lost, families torn apart, and our communities compromised. 
It is a huge cost. I hesitate to talk about things like dollars when 
you are also talking about lives, but it is a cost in both ways. Not 
only are lives being lost and families being torn apart, but the 
estimates are that it costs our society something over $400 billion a 
year in everything from medical costs and criminal justice costs to 
lost economic and lost productivity in our society and our economy.
  But I am here today because all hope is not lost. Contrary to what 
some people hear--and you hear sometimes that this is hopeless and that 
there isn't anything we can do about it--there is ample evidence that 
treatment can work. This is not a death sentence. Opioid abuse is 
terrible, and from talking to people who have suffered from it, it 
literally changes your brain, and it becomes almost impossible to 
escape. But it can be escaped. The reason we know that is that there is 
data from across the country, but the reason I know that is because of 
my friends in Maine--Andrew, Matt, and Chris.
  These are people whom I know, with whom I have interacted, and with 
whom I have sat down. Andrew is a guy who is at the University of 
Southern Maine. He was trapped in the throes of addiction. He went 
through treatment, and now he is in recovery. Indeed, there are 25 
million people in this country who are in recovery, and they will tell 
you that they will always be in recovery because they can never shake 
this disease, whether it is alcohol or the really destructive one that 
we are focusing on right now, which is opioids.
  Andrew has made a new life. He is at school. He is at the University 
of Southern Maine. He has helped form a student-centered community to 
help people who are in recovery or who are working on getting there.
  Matthew is a young man who, in 2009, again was trapped by this 
horrible scourge. Now he is hoping to go to medical school.
  Chris is a guy who sat in my office. He worked in the White House. He 
was in it up to his neck and above. He had criminal justice problems. 
He was in jail. He was convicted. But now he is a member of the Maine 
State Bar Association. He got himself through school, and he got 
himself through law school.
  There was an important moment that I think all of us should think 
about when we think about people who are in this situation. When he 
went to apply to law school, the people at the law school said: Well, 
we don't know if we can take you because you have this record.
  His question, which was brilliant and indicates to me that he is 
going to be a pretty good lawyer, was this: What was my sentence when I 
was convicted? The response was 3 years. He said: You are putting me in 
for life. If you don't let me move forward with my life, you are making 
that a life sentence, not a 3-year sentence. He was accepted to law 
school. He graduated, and this year he passed and was accepted in the 
Maine State Bar Association. He is making a contribution to his 
community.
  Treatment can work. It doesn't always work the first time. Anybody 
that has been through this, whether it is alcohol or even quitting 
smoking or anything else, will tell you that it doesn't work the first 
time necessarily. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. 
Sometimes it will take multiple trips through the recovery and 
treatment process, but it can work. We know it can work. I have 25 
million reasons to tell you that it can work and 3 that I know.
  I am going to be introducing a resolution later today--I hope the 
Senate can take it up and pass it--designating next month as National 
Recovery Month, honoring and recognizing the people who are in 
recovery. So if it works, what is the problem? Why is this hurricane 
still sweeping our country? Why does 2017 look like it is going to be 
worse than 2016?
  Well, the sad truth is that, out of all of those millions of people 
who are addicted, who are stuck, who are trapped, only 1 in 10 has 
access to treatment--only 1 in 10. Now, what do we have to do to deal 
with this problem? Of course, it is like most other problems. There is 
no single answer. It involves law enforcement. It involves 
interdiction, and let me pause for a moment on interdiction. The 
Presiding Officer and I are both on the Armed Services Committee, and 
we have heard testimony in our committee that we only have the Coast 
Guard and Navy resources to interdict one-fourth of the drug shipments 
that we know of coming up from South and Central America by sea. In 
other words, we have intelligence where we know of 100 boats, and we 
can only stop 25. There is no excuse for that. So, yes, law 
enforcement, at the source or along the way in our States, is an 
absolutely essential part of this process, but it is not the whole 
answer. We also have to work on prevention.
  Frankly, I have been talking to groups around Maine and around the 
country on this. We are all still trying to figure out how to make 
prevention work. What will work? I haven't yet heard a really strong 
answer to that question. I guess it varies from person to person, but 
prevention has to be part of it. Treatment can work, but if only 1 in 
10 people have treatment available to them or have access to treatment, 
that means 9 are sentenced to life and maybe to death.
  Last year, a year and a half ago, we passed CARA, the Comprehensive 
Addiction Recovery Act. It is a great bill, with lots of good things in 
it, but no money. That is like sending the fire department to the fire 
and saying: Fight that fire, but we are not going to give you any 
water. We know this costs money, and it is something we have to commit 
to. It has to be part of it.
  Whatever we do around here about healthcare and about budgets, we 
have to realize we are losing our people, and these aren't bad people. 
These aren't people over there. I sat at a roundtable in a small town 
in South Paris, ME. Next to me was a deputy sheriff. He lost his 
daughter. These aren't strangers. These are often middle-class people. 
These are people whose kids or sometimes parents--this is not age 
specific--are caught up in this scourge.
  I guess I want to leave us today with two points. One is, treatment 
works. The second is, we need more of it. If we know something works, 
but only 1 in 10 people have access to it, shame on us for not 
remedying that situation. To me, the most tragic case--and I have 
talked to people in Maine about this--the saddest moment, the most 
tragic case is when someone who is in the throes of opioid abuse is 
ready to ask for help and they have to be put on a waiting list. That 
is tragic and inexcusable. It is hard to get to that point. It is hard 
to admit that you are trapped and that you are no longer in control of 
your life. Once you are willing to do that and say, ``I need help,'' 
then it is up to us to be sure the help is there. That is what we are 
talking about today.
  So this is a different kind of hurricane, but it is a hurricane, 
nonetheless, that is destroying our families, destroying our 
communities, and wrecking the lives of our friends, but it is no act of 
God. We can't stop the winds of Maria or Irma, but we can mitigate the 
effects, ameliorate the effects, soften the effects. That is exactly 
what we need to do for those who are victims of the hurricane of 
opioids that is sweeping our country.
  I hope and believe we will respond to this challenge as we have at 
other

[[Page 15085]]

times in our history, and, indeed, as we are this week to the 
hurricanes of the Caribbean. I want to respond also to the hurricane 
that is sweeping America that we can, indeed, ameliorate, mitigate, and 
soften.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Nomination of Ajit Pai

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to strongly oppose the nomination 
of Ajit Pai to serve a second term as Chairman of the FCC.
  Since taking over the FCC leadership in January, Chairman Pai wasted 
no time moving the agency away from its key mission to promote the use 
and deployment of communications in the public interest. For example, 
he has been involved in dismantling the rules that preserve the 
diversity of content in media ownership, potentially negatively 
impacting forever the number and variety of voices in the media market.
  In addition, his confirmation to this important position will also 
have a negative impact on one of the most important issues, I believe, 
of our time; that is, preserving net neutrality. A strong and open 
internet is key to an economy of the future--to promoting an 
environment for innovation and facilitating the creative jobs that are 
going to come along with an open internet architecture.
  Chairman Pai is poised to undo the bedrock principles that are 
already in place to protect an open internet. Even in the face of 
evidence that these rules are important to an internet economy and 
millions of jobs, he is determined to try to rewrite them.
  On Monday, the Senate will vote on whether to confirm Ajit Pai for 
another term as Chairman of the FCC. As I have said, I think his 
leadership has shown that on net neutrality, he believes the rules 
should be changed. As long as he continues to hold that position, I 
cannot support his nomination.
  As the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, he has 
demonstrated disdain for the important public interest principles he is 
supposed to be upholding. He shows a disregard for the innovators in 
America that are striving to build the economy of the future. The 
public interest mission of the FCC is encoded in the agency's DNA. The 
law that created the FCC clearly states that the agency's mission 
includes promoting equal access to communications networks for all 
people around the United States. This means the FCC has the 
responsibility to promote the expansion of communications networks and 
to ensure they have the incentive and ability to compete fairly with 
one another in providing broadband services. The mission does not 
include letting a big telecom company or cable company run over small 
businesses or consumers and saying to them: Unless you pay me more, I 
am not going to give you essential services. Imagine if that happened 
to the telephone industry decades ago, if you couldn't get access 
because someone had decided, ``I'm going to let the highest bidder rule 
the roost.''
  The President's nomination of Pai and his desire to have him continue 
as Chair continues to show a desire to undermine the internet and the 
internet economy. As soon as he was appointed, Chairman Pai announced 
his intention, as Chairman, to go against the demands of American 
consumers and reverse the rules that are already on the books to 
protect consumers. Chairman Pai wants to make it possible for those big 
telecom and cable companies to erect toll lanes that would further 
burden the nature of the internet and innovation that its economy 
supports. He plans to go against more than 10 million American 
consumers and innovators who have told him to keep the internet open 
and free.
  Recent studies have shown that the internet economy is now over 7 
percent of U.S. GDP, it employs 7 million people and is worth a 
trillion dollars. Our strong, robust internet rules, without question, 
have helped keep that economic growth. Our economy is in a massive 
technological transformation. It is in an information age, and in an 
information age, making sure you have an open internet is going to be 
key to continuing to grow business.
  Every business plan of every startup relies on the ability of 
consumers to get equal access to content. Largely, as a result of the 
innovations, the open internet has created hundreds of thousands of 
tech jobs in the United States. The internet economy is almost a 
trillion dollars, and at 7 percent of GDP, it is growing faster and 
stronger than many other sectors, including construction, mining, 
utilities, agriculture, education, and entertainment.
  It is disturbing to me that Chairman Pai has made it clear he wants 
to rewrite the rules that protect those businesses and create an 
artificial fast and slow lane and ``if you want out of the slow lane, 
you better pay me more money.'' We can't afford to do that for all the 
internet applications and all the small businesses that are continuing 
to work on growing our economy. We need to make sure that instead of 
shedding jobs in the United States, as we did in the last economic 
downturn, that we are creating jobs and creating power for consumers.
  We have seen what has been termed the ``app economy,'' which consists 
of everybody who makes money has a job thanks to a mobile app that was 
also powered by the internet. Today, 1.7 million Americans have jobs 
because of that economy. Nearly 92,000 of them are in the State of 
Washington. Over the past 5 years, that app economy and those jobs have 
grown at an annual rate of 30 percent. The average growth rate for all 
other jobs is 1.6 percent. So, literally, Chairman Pai is trying to 
clog the arteries of one of the fastest growing economic opportunities 
in America.
  By 2020, the app economy is estimated to grow to over $100 billion. 
This demonstrates that the internet economy is a dynamic, supercharged, 
job-creating engine, with economic growth that should not be 
artificially slowed down because some industries believe they have the 
right to do so.
  These facts, and making sure we protect an open internet, are why we 
should not support Chairman Pai.
  The slow lanes and the fast lanes are not like a highway where a 
consumer or business can take another route or plan another course. 
Here, you are creating barriers that are wedges between businesses and 
their consumers, between doctors and their patients, between industry 
solution providers and the customers they are trying to serve.
  The growth of the internet platform for economic activity is 
something we do not want to see destroyed, and Chairman Pai's 
dismantling of that robust internet architecture and the support it 
gives to innovators is extremely troubling to me.
  I think about all the internet applications that I have seen in my 
State, whether it is a business like McKinstry that provides building 
efficiencies to school districts all over our State and in Puget Sound. 
Let's pretend now that McKinstry, which is trying to tell North Shore 
School District that they are using too much power could reduce their 
costs by just doing three simple things--but now, all of a sudden, 
because the net neutrality rules go away, McKinstry has to charge that 
school district more if they want to get that information to them on 
time. A clogged artery will not get the information to that school 
district when it is needed in time to make an adjustment.
  Let's talk about a doctor in a rural area who receives information 
about a patient who comes into their emergency room but wants a consult 
with a doctor in Seattle, and all of a sudden, now their connectivity 
is slowed down unless they pay more money.
  I also think about this issue in the context of just some very 
everyday ways we experience the impact of an open internet. Like people 
going to get coffee. In my State, they will now preorder. They go 
online, and then they show up to get their coffee--all so they can 
avoid the long lines. But now,

[[Page 15086]]

all of a sudden, if net neutrality goes away, is that going to mean 
another charge or, an extra toll, just to get consumers connected to 
the coffee shop so they can avoid a long line? Are cable companies and 
internet service providers going to say to the consumer: You have to 
pay more if you want a fast lane.
  What Chairman Pai doesn't realize is that the internet is now a full-
blown ecosystem with many attachments; that the internet is like the 
artery system that connects it all and connects it in so many ways 
beyond even our imagination. Yet he is proposing to clog those 
arteries, to hold us ransom if only we will tell a cable company it is 
OK to charge the American consumer more.
  We cannot afford to ruin the internet economy by doing this. We need 
to have an open internet architecture that allows everybody to access 
this information at the same time and the same rate so that we can 
continue to innovate.
  There are ways to grow the internet and grow internet investment in 
the delivery system. In fact, during the time period of the open 
internet rules, we have seen just that--a continued investment. So we 
do not now have to rewrite these rules. We do not now have to throw a 
roadblock, a hurdle, a clogging of the arteries at the small business 
and internet economy that is growing so rapidly with all its devices.
  God forbid that one of our colleagues would be on the other side of 
town and get a delayed message about when a vote started just because 
we in the Senate hadn't bought a higher, faster speed lane, and maybe 
they would miss a vote. It is hard to say what slowing down the 
internet artificially would do because it is so connected to everything 
we do today, and that is why we have to stop this from happening.
  I would be happy to hear that Chairman Pai has decided to drop his 
insistence on trying to change the rules of an open internet. If he did 
that, I might think differently about his nomination. But until then I 
will continue to fight for my State's economy, which depends so greatly 
on net neutrality, and continue to fight for the millions of consumers 
around the United States who are trying to grow what are smarter, more 
intelligent, more cost-effective businesses.
  Even the healthcare debate we just had is instructive on the issues 
of net neutrality--I believe in home healthcare. I believe we can 
implement it and drive down costs. But if you are telling a patient 
that they might not get the information back from their doctor for days 
because he can't afford a fast internet connection that the cable 
companies are charging, then I guarantee my colleagues we are not going 
to reduce our healthcare costs.
  So, please, I say to my colleagues, you will not have another chance 
at this. You will hear from your constituents about this issue, and you 
will not be able to take back this vote. Please make sure you 
understand that Chairman Pai is marching ahead on a very different 
anti-consumer road, and because of that, I am not going to vote for 
someone who is going to slow down and clog the internet.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on Chairman Pai's nomination.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I would like to talk about a topic 
that most of us don't want to discuss, and that is taxes, except today 
is different. This time, you don't have to groan over spreadsheets and 
calculations or worry about how much of your hard-earned pay you are 
going to have to send to Uncle Sam. Today, leaders in the House and in 
the Senate will unveil their core principles for tax reform. The 
President will travel with our colleague Senator Young to announce his 
support for these core principles.
  Taxes can be confounding and complicated and painful to deliberate, 
but for folks back home, what I believe describes our tax principles is 
to say more take-home pay, and that works for everybody. In other 
words, you actually reduce your living costs because Uncle Sam takes 
less of your paycheck, meaning you get to keep more of it and take that 
home and spend it on things that you would prefer to spend it on. So 
more take-home pay is our bottom line.
  I look forward to working with the chairman of the Finance Committee, 
on which I have the privilege of serving, and Speaker Ryan and Chairman 
Kevin Brady of the House Ways and Means Committee--another good Texan--
on their ideas, which I know were born from many long hours and tough 
conversations.
  But this is going to be a national conversation, starting with the 
President kicking this off this afternoon in Indiana. He is going to 
invite the American people to express their views on what tax reform 
should look like.
  For me, in addition to more take-home pay, I am looking for a tax 
code which is shorter, simpler, and which makes us more competitive in 
the global economy.
  It is a great relief, believe me, to have a President who understands 
how taxes and the uncertainty they place on job creators stifles 
economic growth. The reason economic growth is so important is that 
when the economy grows, more jobs are created, and for the jobs that 
exist, the people who have them will actually earn more money and be 
able to pursue their dreams.
  Just as importantly, though, this President understands that the job 
creator is not the enemy. A former colleague of ours, Gordon Smith from 
Oregon, once told me that the problem with some of our Democratic 
friends is that they claim to love the worker, but they hate the job 
creator. To me, that sort of summarized it pretty well. I know he 
didn't mean ``hate'' in the traditional sense, but he did mean 
Congress--and particularly our folks on the Democratic side--likes to 
implement additional burdens, such as higher taxes or more regulation, 
more obstacles in the way of our job creators, when we should be 
tearing down those walls, reducing that regulation, and lowering taxes 
so that they can be successful, and in the process, we can all succeed. 
Well, this President understands that our economy, too, is crucial but 
extremely fragile, and he joins all of us in wanting to do everything 
he can, and everything we can, to ensure that we continue to be the 
strongest economy in the world.
  Here is why tax reform is so important in the first place. In the 
words of Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute, the 
American Founders promised not just happiness but the pursuit of 
happiness. That is, of course, in the Declaration of Independence. I 
think Arthur is onto something. I think that is a good way of putting 
it. It means that all of us, based on our country's original vision, 
should be free to follow our dreams without government getting in our 
way or making our burdens heavy. We should be free to pursue happiness.
  Average American citizens should not be numbed or stifled by 
mandatory participation in a system that depletes their energy and 
discourages them, and that is what our Tax Code does today. It exhausts 
people when it comes to fully complying with our arcane and convoluted 
and complex laws because they are so difficult. So many people simply 
outsource that by hiring some lawyer or some accountant to prepare 
their taxes because it is so complex. We can do better than that. We 
can make it simpler and fairer and flatter.
  Today, many of the obstacles that exist prevent the average American 
from pursuing their dreams and reaching their full potential, which 
ought to be what joins us all together. One of those is an outdated and 
highly convoluted tax system that actually penalizes hard work, stymies 
ingenuity, and enriches the lawyers and accountants that people have to 
hire in order to just comply with all of its convoluted complexity--so-
called compliance costs. Call this the terrible tedium of taxes. It 
zaps our energy rather than unleashing it. It erodes our work ethic, 
because if you work harder and harder only to see more and more money 
go to the Federal Government, what does that do to incentivize people 
to work harder? It erodes our work ethic, as we see less reason to 
labor for what ultimately gets taken from us.

[[Page 15087]]

  The mission of the so-called Big 6 committee, which has been asked to 
put together a blueprint for reform, has been to protect American jobs 
and make the Tax Code simpler, fairer, and lower for average American 
families. In a sense, it is all about putting families first. Families 
build individuals, and families mold character. We have to give every 
opportunity to families who need to thrive. We have to keep the 
uninvited guest of government away from the front door, constantly 
begging for more money, more time, and more attention, and constantly 
throwing a wrench into their plans.
  I also believe we should provide tax relief for small businesses 
because small businesses are literally the engine of our economy. It is 
not the Fortune 500 that creates the vast percentage of jobs in this 
country. It is small businesses, which often face an unyielding 
regulatory state. We should lower taxes for all American businesses so 
they can compete with foreign ones.
  As the so-called Big 6 committee has said, the goal of any new plan 
should be, first and foremost, to reduce tax rates as much as possible. 
Let's make sure this ``first cut is the deepest,'' as the song goes, 
but also to place a priority on permanence, to create a system that 
encourages American companies to bring jobs back from overseas, along 
with the profits they will not bring back because they will be taxed 
twice, and to put more money back in the pockets of all Americans.
  As Ronald Reagan said, there is one simple fact you have to keep in 
mind when it comes to taxes: ``The problem is not that the people are 
taxed too little, the problem is that the Government spends too much.''
  This is not just about sheer wealth we are after but about earned 
success--the ability of mothers, fathers, and families to work a long 
day and to keep more of their hard-earned paychecks to use as they 
please--to save it for their retirement, to spend it on their house, or 
even to dote on their children. When families get to keep more of the 
money they earn, they are more inclined to take advantage of or to 
create their own opportunities, including new businesses. Social 
mobility increases and so does room for charity.
  The United States is the most charitable and generous country in the 
world. People don't just turn to government for help during times of 
need. We saw that in Hurricane Harvey and in Hurricane Irma and now in 
Hurricane Maria. Many, many Americans generously dip into their own 
resources to help provide for their fellow human beings in need during 
times of tragedy. It is our prosperity that comes from job creation--
getting to keep more of what you earn and pay the government less--that 
makes that possible.
  When Alexis de Tocqueville came to the United States, shortly after 
our country's founding, in his book ``Democracy in America,'' he 
pointed out that one of the unique things about America--certainly much 
different than Europe--was the organizing and voluntary associations. 
These often are charitable organizations--whether they are churches or 
synagogues or mosques or just community organizations--that as part of 
their good work provide charitable benefits for our fellow man and 
woman. We ought to encourage that.
  Of course, none of us is an island. It is not that lower tax rates 
translate to everyone looking out exclusively for No. 1. Oftentimes, 
that is the way our friends across the aisle will depict lowering 
taxes. They say: You are lowering taxes for the rich.
  We want to lower taxes for everybody--not because it benefits an 
individual but because it benefits the country and it benefits all 
Americans. It makes us more competitive globally. It creates more jobs 
and opportunities for Americans who are looking for those jobs and 
opportunities. It creates incentives for investment so that the 
entrepreneur can start a business, come up with a new idea, change the 
world, and create jobs and opportunities for other people at the same 
time.
  We know that social obligations are still important. It is just that 
there are many ways of meeting them other than just cutting a big 
paycheck to the Federal Government every April. In fact, the higher 
taxes we pay, the easier it is for citizens to assume that, well, I 
have paid the Federal Government; so let the government take care of 
it.
  That is not who we are. That is not who we have been. That is 
certainly not how we began. We began as a government that believed in 
the individuality and the importance of all individuals, and we all 
collectively benefit when each of us is free to pursue their dreams 
because that increases the prosperity and the opportunities for all.
  We will never become, I hope and pray, a country that says: It is the 
government's job when it comes to taking care of a man or woman or a 
family in need. Yes, government has a role to play, but I hope we will 
always be the generous sort of country that we started out to be and 
that we still are today, with neighbors helping neighbors.
  Middle-class Americans have experienced a decade of higher taxes, 
more regulation, and stagnant economic growth under the last 
administration. It is time to break out of that cycle, and this is our 
time to do that.
  Every American knows we can do better. If you ask them: Are your 
taxes hard to prepare, is it complicated, are you confused, or do you 
feel like the Federal Government is getting a bigger bite out of your 
paycheck than it should, I think you would get near unanimity that the 
Tax Code is too complex, the Federal Government is too voracious when 
it comes to taking a bite out of your paycheck, and people would 
welcome the ability to keep more of what they earn.
  It is time for us to show that we understand the plight of hard-
working American families and people of all economic levels, that we 
are hearing them when they say they want to keep more of the paycheck 
they earn and they want us to lower their cost of living by lowering 
the tax bite out of the paycheck they do earn.
  Americans are wondering what our tax reform policies will be. For me, 
here are some nonnegotiable items. The Tax Code must be simplified. Job 
creators must be incentivized to keep well-paying jobs here at home in 
the United States. American competitiveness in a global economy must be 
increased by lowering business tax rates.
  The result should be a new, retooled system that will put more money 
in the pockets of middle-class families and reenergize our economy. It 
will benefit Americans in every State across the country. It will also 
make it possible for us to meet our other priorities, as the Federal 
Treasury also will benefit from more people working, earning better 
wages, and helping to support their government. It will make it 
possible for us to spend more money on our priorities, like national 
defense, which right now is underfunded, or medical research or other 
priorities that the American people may have.
  By delivering on these principles, we can restore prosperity for this 
generation and many generations to come, and we can keep the promise of 
the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with 
certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness.
  Ultimately, that is what we are talking about when we talk about tax 
reform. We shouldn't just be wearing green eyeshades, getting out our 
spreadsheets, and counting the numbers. This is about keeping the 
promise of the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our 
Creator with an unalienable right to pursue happiness.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, our Constitution begins with three simple 
words: ``We the People.'' The Founders wrote that in supersized font to 
remind us that this is what our Nation is all about. It is not about 
power by the

[[Page 15088]]

privileged. It is not the elite. It is not to make the wealthy 
wealthier. It is not to add more to the abundance of those who already 
have much. It is to establish government that reflects the will of the 
people or, as President Lincoln put it, ``of the people, by the people, 
for the people.''
  In this age where vast sums are spent on campaigns by a few 
billionaires to basically substitute government of, by, and for the 
people with government of, by, and for the powerful, we have an 
enormous challenge to maintain the integrity of the mission of our 
Constitution and the responsibility of this Senate.
  We probably haven't seen a challenge to ``we the people'' in years 
like the equivalent of TrumpCare. Certainly, it is designed to plan for 
massive tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans of hundreds of 
billions of dollars and to rip healthcare away from 20 to 30 million 
ordinary working families.
  What a travesty that is of our responsibility under our Constitution. 
What amazingly misguided effort to do damage, rather than to assist and 
provide a foundation for families to thrive.
  A few years ago, a woman came up to me at a fundraiser for multiple 
sclerosis--a walk--and she said: Things are so different this year, 
Senator, than they were last year.
  I asked her: How so?
  She said: A year ago, if our loved one was diagnosed with MS and they 
had insurance, they were likely to have an annual cap or a lifetime cap 
and run out of coverage.
  That was a terrible situation to be in because MS is a mysterious and 
expensive disease.
  She said: If the individual didn't have insurance, they now had a 
preexisting condition, and they wouldn't able to get insurance.
  She said: Now, we have the peace of mind that if our loved one gets 
an MS diagnosis, that individual will be able to get the care they 
need.
  Isn't that the summary of what we should be seeking in our healthcare 
system--the peace of mind that if our child or our loved one becomes 
ill, if our child or our loved one becomes injured, he or she will get 
the care they need? Shouldn't that be what we are fighting for?
  Instead, we had the opposite. We had the TrumpCare bill that was 
designed to rip peace of mind away, destroy peace of mind, trample all 
over peace of mind so the wealthy could have more giveaways from the 
Federal Treasury.
  We had that House bill, and it was estimated that 23 million people 
would lose healthcare over 10 years and that our hospitals and our 
clinics would have a lot less funding to be able to provide care to 
everyone. Yet it passed the House. Then President Trump got briefed on 
what was in the bill after he held a champagne party at the White House 
and celebrated its passage. He said: Oh, wait. This bill is mean and 
heartless.
  Over here in the Senate, the Senate's secret 13 went to work to try 
to produce a bill without holding any public hearings or having any 
discussions with stakeholders. They were secreted away in a room, and 
no one could find out where they were in order to be able to offer any 
insights. They did not hold any townhalls back home, and they had no 
meetings here. The public was totally blocked out. The secret 13, 
amazingly, came up with an almost identical bill to the House bill. Oh, 
the estimate was instead, maybe, of there being 23 million people who 
would lose insurance, 22 million people would lose insurance. 
Fortunately, the secret 13 bill was defeated--but just barely--here in 
this Chamber.
  Then came another version of this called the fake insurance bill. 
This fake insurance version said: Hey, let's let the insurance 
companies put out policies that are really, really cheap but that do 
not actually cover anything. Won't that make us feel good that everyone 
in America will be able to afford a policy that only costs $40 or $50 a 
month.
  Of course, fake insurance is fake; that is, when you go to the 
emergency room, it does not cover the visit. When you get a blood test, 
it does not cover the blood test. When you get an x ray or an MRI, it 
does not pay for it. Oh, don't even begin to think about its covering 
hospitalization or any other normal medical service because it is fake 
insurance. The fake insurance bill failed by a few votes on the Senate 
floor.
  Then we had repeal without replacement, and that failed. Then we had 
the skinny bill, and that failed by a single vote.
  How is it possible that we came that close to passing a bill that is 
completely the opposite of the vision of our Constitution--to legislate 
for the foundation, for the American people, not the American 
privileged and not the American powerful. Yet it came within a vote of 
passing.
  This week, we have the block grant version--the block grant version 
that proceeds to destroy immediately the exchanges, the healthcare 
marketplaces. Of course, the great irony is, that was the Republican 
idea: Let's create a marketplace within which people can compare 
individual policies, pick the ones best for their families, and get tax 
credits to be able to buy them. So the Republicans came out against 
their own plan.
  In addition, it wiped out Medicaid expansion. In my home State of 
Oregon, the exchange is responsible for roughly another 100,000 people 
getting access to insurance, the marketplace, and 400,000 people 
gaining access through Medicaid expansion. There are a half a million 
Americans in just my State, my humble State of Oregon. Yet here was a 
bill that said: We do not care. We are going to wipe out healthcare for 
a half a million Oregonians and untold millions across the country--20 
to 30 million across the country.
  We owe a big thank-you to grassroots America. We owe a big thank-you 
to ordinary citizens who believe in the vision of this country. They 
proceeded to connect with Capitol Hill--to fill the streets and to 
flood the phones and to overflow our inboxes--saying: What are you 
doing? Please stop. Please stop trying to destroy the peace of mind of 
Americans. They said: Make healthcare work better, not worse.
  Is that really too much for us to ask?
  As we ponder how to make healthcare work better, those in grassroots 
America have expressed a lot of ideas. They have said: We have a really 
complicated system that creates all kinds of obstacles for ordinary 
families, for working families.
  For example, consider whether you have a job that provides you with 
insurance and your family with insurance but then the company changes 
the policy and only covers you. How are you going to get your children 
covered? Are you going to be able to get them signed up right away in 
the Children's Health Insurance Program? How do you go about doing 
that?
  Then your employer says: By the way, you now have to start paying us 
in order for us to provide you with healthcare.
  You say: Wow. That is a huge chunk out of my check. Can I possibly 
afford that and still pay my rent? Am I going to have to choose between 
healthcare and homelessness? It is not a choice families should have to 
make.
  Then, perhaps, people are working several part-time jobs, and their 
employers have no healthcare programs at all, so they sign up for the 
Oregon Health Plan or the equivalent Medicaid plan across the country. 
They might like that, but it is complicated to apply, and they have to 
reapply periodically. What happens if their incomes go up just a 
little, and now they are over the line for eligibility? As a result of 
being over the line, they now have to go back into the individual 
markets. How do you do that in the middle of the year when it is not an 
open enrollment period?
  There is such complexity, such difficulty. That is why it is so 
appealing to think about the vision of a seamless, simple healthcare 
program that you have that will provide quality healthcare when you 
need it--portable healthcare--just by virtue of your being an American. 
That is a beautiful vision, and it is not out of reach. Every other 
developed country has found some version of that and made it a reality. 
We need to ponder as to how to

[[Page 15089]]

have that seamless, simple system down the road, but right now we have 
a more immediate task.
  That immediate task is to stop the sabotage of the healthcare system 
we have. President Trump has engaged in many maneuvers to try to force 
the collapse of the insurance markets. One is to withhold the cost-
sharing payments from insurers so they no longer have the funds they 
were promised. That uncertainty has caused many companies to say: Do 
not count on us to be in that market in the future if we cannot count 
on you, the Federal Government, to honor your obligations.
  Why isn't the Senate body demanding that the President honor the 
obligations of those cost-sharing payments?
  In addition, we have the President shutting down advertising during 
the open period so people will not know they can sign up. We have 
President Trump cutting the enrollment period in half. We have a plan 
now from the administration to cut the funds for consumer outreach and 
enrollment assistance, which enables folks who need to get healthcare 
to find out how they can actually get through the complicated 
application process.
  Most recently, the administration announced it is actually going to 
shut down the website periodically on weekends during the open 
enrollment period, which is when people will have the time and effort 
and ability to apply. They are going to shut down the website so people 
will not be able to apply during portions of the weekend.
  All of us should unite--100 Senators should unite--and tell President 
Trump: Enough of this sabotage. If you want to drive up insurance 
policies by 20 percent over any other increase they might otherwise 
have and if you want to be responsible for millions of people not 
gaining access because of your irresponsibility, then we are going to 
hold you accountable for it. Everybody in grassroots America is going 
to hold you accountable for it.
  Fortunately, we have a bipartisan process that has been underway to 
remedy these conditions. I, profoundly, thank Lamar Alexander, chair of 
the HELP Committee, and Patty Murray, the ranking Democrat on the HELP 
Committee, for saying: Let's have the normal, rational process that we 
go through to try to understand how we can improve the healthcare 
system.
  They have held a series of hearings. They have brought in the 
experts, and they have brought in the stakeholders. They have done it 
in front of the public so the public can weigh in. They have consulted 
constituents and encouraged all of us to consult with our constituents 
and be part of that conversation. Pragmatic, experienced legislators 
are gaining expertise from those on the frontline so they can make the 
system work better. Isn't that the way the Senate is supposed to work?
  Their work shows a lot of promise. There are some very 
straightforward things they have heard from those experts.
  They have heard we need to lock down the cost-sharing payments. No 
insurance companies are going to be in the insurance markets if they do 
not know they are going to get paid what they have been promised or 
they are going to raise their premiums incredibly high to cover the 
risk that they will not get paid. Then, of course, people will not be 
able to afford that insurance.
  They have heard from the experts that you have to have reinsurance. 
If you want to have this private marketplace in which people can 
compare policies and use tax credits to buy the policies, an insurance 
company will not enter that market unless it has its own insurance 
policy against getting the disproportionate share of the really sick 
people. Of reinsurance, they have heard.
  They have also heard we must not suppress outreach to those who need 
insurance but increase outreach--outreach to younger, healthier people 
to make sure they are part of the exchange as well as outreach to those 
who are often working several part-time jobs and have little time to 
focus on this question unless someone reaches out and says: Here is 
your opportunity. We are now in the open period. Here is how you sign 
up, and we can make sure you get that done.
  In that set of hearings, they heard other things. They heard we need 
to do more to take on the challenge of mental illness in America. They 
heard we need to do more to take on drug addiction, the opioid epidemic 
in America.
  There it is--a list of a modest number of things we could do together 
to make our healthcare work better. Wouldn't that be a beautiful 
closing chapter to the nightmare, the repeated horror stories we have 
been playing in the Senate that threaten to rip healthcare from 
millions of people and simply awaken from that war over healthcare and 
work together to address these fundamental questions.
  We actually have had public hearings in the HELP Committee, which we 
have not done before. We have actually listened to the experts, which 
we have not done before. We have actually encouraged people to consult 
with their constituents rather than to hide from their constituents. 
The result would be a significant strengthening of what we have--lower 
premiums as a result, more competition in the exchanges, more awareness 
of how to sign up, more and healthier young people getting involved in 
the exchanges, which means the premiums will come down.
  I think, as we ponder the goal of our healthcare system--the question 
of peace of mind--that is our best immediate step forward to provide 
peace of mind, to end the sabotage of the system we have, and address 
the shortcomings the healthcare experts and the people of America have 
pointed out.
  Let us be that mission statement under this vision of a ``we the 
people'' government, in that we pursue healthcare that is designed for 
the people of America in order to create peace of mind, so when their 
loved ones become ill or when their loved ones are injured, they will 
get the care they need, and they will not end up bankrupt. We should be 
able to make that happen.
  Thank you.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, last week the Senate passed the 
bipartisan Defense Authorization Act. The world is a very dangerous 
place. This legislation is very important to keeping our country safe.
  Another thing we need to do to keep America safe is to get the 
economy going and growing. We need a strong and healthy economy in this 
country, and we need it now. A strong economy means a strong country 
with enough money to pay for the defense needs that we have at this 
time.
  Over the 8 years of the Obama administration, Washington doubled its 
debt. Why? Because our economy grew so slowly and the administration 
spent too much money. If this sort of thing continues, it is going to 
leave America in a much more vulnerable position.
  America needs a stronger economy that grows faster. To get the kind 
of growth we need, we are going to have to provide real tax relief for 
America, for hard-working families, and for the economy. That means 
cutting tax rates, and it means simplifying taxes for everyone. If we 
get this right, we are going to be able to produce more jobs, Americans 
will have higher wages, more take-home pay, and we will have a stronger 
economy.
  According to the Internal Revenue Service, Americans spend about 6 
billion hours a year on taxes, just trying to prepare their taxes. 
Between businesses and individual families, we spend an average of 18 
hours for every man, woman, and child in America, just trying to comply 
with Washington's complicated Tax Code. The National Taxpayers Union 
says that the total cost of all of this is $263 billion a year. That 
works out to about $800 for every person in America. This is not 
spending that does anything productive. It is just figuring out how 
much

[[Page 15090]]

tax to pay, and how to do it in a way to send it back to Washington so 
that the IRS will not come knocking at your door--how to get your 
numbers right.
  The instructions for last year's standard 1040 tax form were 106 
pages long. These are the instructions--15 different worksheets for 
people to fill out just to try to fill out the forms. The people who 
can deal with this level of complexity are the ones who basically can 
afford to hire expensive accountants and lawyers, who then take full 
advantage of a very complicated tax code. It penalizes hard-working 
Americans who can't afford the high-priced help that helps them fill 
out and take full advantage of a complicated tax code.
  We hear a lot about people who talk about how millionaires and 
billionaires are gaming the system so that they can pay less in taxes. 
If that is their concern, then maybe we should try to make this system 
simple enough that there is no system to game and everyone can 
understand it.
  Just think about how much we could save this country if we simplify 
things even a little bit. All the time we could save, all the extra 
money in the pockets of hard-working American families--that would 
really help to grow the economy and do it quickly. It would also make 
life a lot simpler for most Americans.
  If we also, at the same time as simplifying the Tax Code, lower the 
tax rates, that keeps even more money in people's pockets. It gives 
them more money to decide what to save, what to spend, and what to 
invest--money they can spend going out to dinner if they choose. They 
can invest it if they want, and save for the future. If they actually 
choose to spend the money by going out to dinner, that helps the 
economy around the community where they live. People at the restaurants 
have to hire additional servers, and they will then have money to pay 
their own bills. That is how an economy grows. That is how providing 
people with more money in their pockets helps an economy become 
stronger and healthier.
  There is another important part of tax relief we need to remember. We 
need to be sure we solve a big problem with the taxes that not just 
individuals pay but that businesses pay. The reason we need to do that 
is because many people think of businesses as big, faceless companies, 
but the simple fact is that these businesses actually don't pay the 
taxes personally. People have to pay the taxes. That is because 
businesses pay taxes with money they get from their customers.
  If the government says it is going to put a big tax on some company, 
that basically gets passed on to the workers there and also to the 
people who buy that product. The Congressional Budget Office looked 
into this. Their office looked into it, and they found that more than 
70 percent of the cost of corporate taxes actually comes from the 
people who work for these businesses. Nearly 3 out of every 4 dollars 
they spend in taxes would have ended up going back to the workers to 
have that money--workers who are either buying products or workers 
working within the company. Maybe it would have been higher wages or 
better benefits or some other way that people would have gotten a 
benefit from the money that otherwise just gets collected and sent to 
the government.
  Obviously, a big chunk of the money is from the workers, and another 
big chunk is from the consumers. If a family buys something, part of 
the price they are paying is to cover the taxes that business has to 
pay. The higher taxes mean higher prices for people who go to buy 
something.
  The third way that people pay these business taxes is when they get 
paid by the people who own a share of the business. If you take a look, 
there are a lot of people on the other side of the aisle who like to 
talk about taxing the rich who own stock in companies that are all 
across our country. The only problem is, most of the people who 
actually own shares in these companies are far from rich. More than 
half of Americans actually own stocks in corporations that are paying 
these high taxes. Maybe they have an IRA, a retirement plan, a 401(k) 
through their work. Whatever it is, Americans who are investing for 
their future are also being taxed.
  Some of the biggest owners of these corporations are actually the 
pension funds of public employees. That includes teachers, it includes 
firefighters, it includes people in every community around America. 
Taxes take away money that could make these pensions worth more. When 
the government takes taxes away, there is less money in the pension 
plans for our teachers, for our firefighters, for our first responders. 
So it is a real problem that the corporate tax rates are so high 
because high taxes hold back the entire economy and hold back the 
entire country.
  If you look at the most developed countries around the world, the 
United States has the highest corporate tax rate of all of them. The 
average tax rate of all of these major countries around the world--
across the globe--is 24 percent. In the United States, it is 39 
percent. We are 15 percent higher in tax rates than the average of the 
major countries around the world. So that is the top Federal rate, and 
when you include the average for State and local taxes, it gets you to 
39 percent--24 percent versus 39 percent. That is how far out of the 
ordinary American taxes have become.
  It is a huge disadvantage for American companies that are trying to 
compete on the world stage. Frankly, the reason we are at such a 
disadvantage is that other countries have been cutting their tax rates 
over the years. There was actually a time when the U.S. tax rates were 
fairly low, and other countries continued to cut theirs below ours. Now 
we are at a point that the average for developed countries around the 
world is at 24 percent, and the United States is at 39 percent. Places 
like Germany, Japan, and Canada have all cut their rates going back 
over the last 60, 70 years. We haven't done it here at all. Now it is 
time to do it.
  It is one of the reasons our economy has been stuck with the slow 
growth rate that we had during the Obama administration. It is what we 
have seen over the last 8 years--a very sluggish economy with very 
little growth. If we can cut corporate tax rates, personal rates, that 
is going to really help stimulate the economy.
  People pay taxes. It is the individuals who pay the taxes that in 
many ways run the government. Many people I talk to in Wyoming feel, 
rightly so, that the problem isn't that they are taxed too little; it 
is that the government takes too much.
  We need to get the economy going, and we can do that by simplifying 
and lowering the tax rates. It is true that, with taxes, people 
actually struggle with trying to figure them out at the kitchen table. 
I have talked to those folks at home. It is continually a problem--the 
simplification, as well as how much money the government takes from 
them. Taxes raise prices. Taxes chip away at retirement savings that 
people have.
  Tax relief and simplifying taxes makes sense for American families. 
It means more jobs. It means higher wages. It means a safer America and 
a stronger America. It is good for our economy, and it is good for all 
hard-working taxpayers and the families those taxpayers support.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. COONS. Madam President, yesterday we learned that, once again, my 
Republican colleagues do not have the votes to pass their latest effort 
to repeal the Affordable Care Act, even though the budget 
reconciliation process we are currently under requires only 50 votes. 
There are not 50 votes.
  Many of my colleagues have spoken on this floor about the challenges, 
the problems, or the issues with the latest iteration of the Graham-
Cassidy bill. We have also heard as a body from many organizations all 
over the country that represent Americans in healthcare: the American 
Medical Association, which speaks for America's doctors; the American 
Hospital Association, which speaks for our hospitals;

[[Page 15091]]

America's Health Insurance Plans; the American Cancer Society; many 
other patient advocacy groups; and the AARP, which advocates for 
seniors. All have weighed in about the challenges with this 
legislation.
  But rather than continuing to bear down on that point, I would like 
to quote a colleague and hero of mine. Senator John McCain said on this 
floor:

       We should not be content to pass healthcare legislation on 
     a party-line basis. . . . The issue is too important, and too 
     many lives are at risk, for us to leave the American people 
     guessing from one election to the next whether and how they 
     will acquire health insurance. A bill of this impact requires 
     a bipartisan approach.

  Senator McCain also said:

       I hope that in the months ahead, we can join with 
     colleagues on both sides of the aisle to arrive at a 
     compromise solution that is acceptable to most of us, and 
     serves the interests of Americans as best we can.

  Senator McCain is right. Fixing and improving our healthcare system 
cannot be done on a partisan basis. When it has been attempted to turn 
big bills into law on a narrow party-line basis, the results are often 
not sustainable. That is why we have work to do together, because this 
issue of providing for America's healthcare is too complex, too big, 
and too important for us to do with only one wing or one party.
  I was encouraged, as were many colleagues, Republican and Democratic, 
when Senators Alexander and Murray, the Republican and Democratic 
leaders of the Senate Health and Education Committee, held bipartisan 
hearings. They brought in Governors, insurance commissioners, 
healthcare experts, physicians, and hospital leaders from across the 
country to talk about what we need to do short term and long term to 
stabilize healthcare markets and to lay the foundation for improvements 
to our healthcare system.
  So let's listen to Senator McCain. Let's give that bipartisan effort 
another chance. Let's work together and do this the right way.
  I ride the train back and forth almost every day from Wilmington to 
Washington, and the Delawareans I hear from on that train or at home in 
the grocery store or around my State are simply tired of Congress 
fighting endless partisan battles with their healthcare. And it is not 
just frustrating to hear about on television; we know for a fact that 
uncertainty in the healthcare markets is causing premiums to go up for 
Americans all over the country. The CEO of Highmark, which is the sole 
provider of individual market health insurance to the ACA market in 
Delaware now, conveyed to me that half of the rate increase for this 
coming year was due to uncertainty about whether the Trump 
administration would continue to enforce the individual mandate, to 
make the CSR payments, and other things that are part of the ACA.
  So today, recognizing that the only way this gets fixed in such a 
closely divided and partisan Senate is if we work together, I would 
like to commit again to my constituents and colleagues that I am 
willing to work to find bipartisan solutions to our healthcare 
problems.
  Let's sit down together, and let's bring in organizations like the 
AMA, the AARP, the American Cancer Society, the American Hospital 
Association, and let's listen. Let's listen to them, to healthcare 
leaders, and to patient advocates, and frankly I think we should listen 
to thousands of faith leaders from across the country as well. We have 
received letters--all of us as a body--from leaders of the Christian, 
Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, and Buddhist communities across our country. They 
jointly wrote a letter to Congress urging us to reject the Graham-
Cassidy bill and to immediately address urgent matters that are right 
in front of us.
  The next one is CHIP reauthorization. CHIP--the Children's Health 
Insurance Program--serves nearly 9 million American children, 17,000 in 
Delaware alone, and it is going to expire. There are a lot of Federal 
health programs that expire at the end of this week: the Children's 
Health Insurance Program, the Community Health Center Fund, which 
provides access to cost-effective primary and preventive care for 26 
million patients throughout the country; the teaching health centers 
funding; the special diabetes program. There is a whole list of 
healthcare-related programs that expire at the end of this week. So I 
think we need a sense of urgency. We need a sense of urgency to finding 
ways to work together in the short term to stabilize the market, to 
extend these programs, such as CHIP, that have long enjoyed bipartisan 
support and to begin the steps needed to show flexibility and 
compromise by both parties.
  First, as I said, we have to stabilize the individual ACA 
marketplace. Fortunately, we know how to do that. As I mentioned, there 
have already been hearings in which testimony was received from 
Governors, insurance commissioners, healthcare experts, and they said 
the No. 1 priority was funding the ACA cost-sharing reduction 
subsidies, or CSR payments. That is something the Trump administration 
can do today. The administration can simply announce that they will 
continue to meet the law and make those payments. At least in my State, 
that will reduce the rate of increase of individual insurance premiums 
by a significant percentage.
  We can also work together to establish a reinsurance program, to 
support enrollment outreach activities, and to enforce the individual 
mandate. All of this would translate to lower premiums. As I said, the 
President is already authorized under the ACA to take a few of these 
steps and stabilize the marketplace.
  From there, we are going to have to find bipartisan ways that we can 
make this a more workable system. I have introduced legislation in the 
past to make the ACA small business tax credits more appropriately 
sized for the small businesses I have heard from in Delaware, many of 
which can't afford the increased costs of the Affordable Care Act.
  There are ways we can work together to reduce the reporting 
requirements so they are less burdensome to employers. I introduced a 
bill on that in the last Congress and would welcome a chance to work 
with a Republican colleague to introduce and pass that legislation now.
  We could also look at ways to make the tax credits--or the way that 
subsidies are provided through the ACA--both more affordable and more 
sustainable, so that families who qualify aren't caught in a situation 
where they qualify for tax credits, but they are nowhere near enough to 
afford comprehensive health insurance.
  We also have to take a hard, bipartisan look at what is driving up 
healthcare costs across this country. We aren't just challenged with 
resolving issues around health insurance; we also have to find a 
bipartisan path toward addressing healthcare costs.
  The bottom line to all of this is that we must work together to 
return to regular order and to give these programs the stability and 
certainty they need to serve patients across the country and our 
constituents at home.
  In my view, the Affordable Care Act has helped millions of Americans 
live healthier, safer, more secure lives. Repealing it and replacing it 
with one of the proposals we have seen in recent months would have been 
very harmful to millions of Americans. But that doesn't mean the ACA is 
perfect. There is hard work to do. Compromise is needed on both sides. 
And I think the call that Senator McCain has issued to this Chamber is 
one we should hear.
  So let's work together. Let's listen to our constituents. Let's 
listen to faith leaders. Let's listen to doctors and healthcare 
experts. Let's do the hard work and together improve, not tear down, 
our healthcare system.
  Thank you.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Tribute to Emily Enderle

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, may I bid a public farewell to Emily

[[Page 15092]]

Enderle, who is here with me and who has served as the lead on my very 
active and busy environment unit for quite some time now. She is going 
on to another role in Washington and will continue to serve our cause. 
She has done an amazing job, and I want to be sure to say that on what 
will be her last appearance on the floor with me for one of our ``Time 
to Wake Up'' speeches.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. President, I have spoken before, as you know, about the fossil 
fuel industry's persistent effort to undermine public understanding of 
climate change and to confuse people about the actual effects of carbon 
pollution on our atmosphere and oceans.
  I have mentioned Drexel University Professor Robert Brulles' follow-
the-money analysis, which reveals the complex network of organizations 
and funding--what we have called the web of denial--that is designed to 
obscure the fossil fuel industry's fingerprints and to perpetuate the 
fossil fuel industry's climate denial.
  Dr. Brulle calls this ``a deliberate and organized effort to 
misdirect the public discussion and distort the public's understanding 
of climate.'' That is what this industry is up to.
  One front group for that industry is called the Heartland Institute. 
It is a nice name, but they are not very nice people. For decades, the 
Heartland Institute has played a prominent role disseminating 
alternative facts and fake science at the behest of its industry 
funders. They have a long history of doing the bidding of industry 
funders. In the 1990s, it was teamed up with Philip Morris to challenge 
the facts about the health risks of tobacco. Using the same tactics--
along with funding from the Koch Family Foundations, ExxonMobil, and 
other fossil fuel interests--it undermines public confidence in the 
established scientific consensus about climate change. Heartland is 
quite shameless in its methods, once sponsoring a billboard comparing 
those who accept the science of global warming to the Unabomber.
  For my 180th ``Time to Wake Up'' speech, I would like to explore the 
Heartland Institute's latest gambit, which is to airdrop climate denial 
propaganda directly into children's classrooms.
  This spring, Heartland delivered packages to hundreds of thousands of 
K-12 and college-level science teachers across the country. These 
materials were designed to have a veneer of credibility. Each one was 
stamped with the headline ``Study: Science Teachers Giving Unbalanced 
Education on Climate Change.'' This intriguing story was attributed to 
something called Environment & Climate News.
  Inside the package, the teachers found a report titled ``Why 
Scientists Disagree About Global Warming.'' It was issued by something 
called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. As a 
bonus, each teacher also received a DVD copy of the ``History of 
Climate Change in Greenland,'' produced by Idea Channel.
  A cover letter from Heartland's Center for Transforming Education--
transforming education into propaganda, I assume is how that sentence 
gets finished--asks teachers to ``consider the possibility'' the 
science of climate change isn't settled.
  That is the package they got. Let's look behind that veneer. When you 
do, the smell gets pretty rotten. It turns out that the Environment & 
Climate News is not actually news. It is not a news outlet. It is the 
monthly newsletter of, guess who, the Heartland Institute. They are 
citing themselves, masquerading their newsletter as a news outlet. The 
foolishness goes on.
  Their featured article, ``Study: Science Teachers Giving Unbalanced 
Education on Climate Change'' was written by a person named Bonner 
Cohen, who is a featured expert--guess where--with the Heartland 
Institute, who previously held senior positions in--believe it or not--
Philip Morris front groups.
  Their Nongovernmental International Panel On Climate Change sounds 
like a well-known actual authority: The Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change. The actual Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is 
a United Nations-sanctioned, Nobel Prize-winning scientific body that 
reports the findings of thousands of climate scientists from hundreds 
of countries. The Heartland group--this so-called Nongovernmental 
International Panel on Climate Change--is a misleading decoy designed 
to mimic the real entity.
  The three experts who wrote the Nongovernmental International Panel 
on Climate Change report Heartland pushed out do not have degrees in 
climate change modeling, do not having degrees in climate science. All 
are paid by Heartland. All their claims have been repeatedly debunked 
by real science.
  There is one faint hint of accuracy in this propaganda publication 
Heartland put out. There actually is a PBS series called Idea Channel. 
However, the Idea Channel DVD in the Heartland packet has nothing to do 
with that series. It was actually produced by something called the Free 
To Choose Network, whose funding, like Heartland's, is linked to the 
fossil fuel industry. It is another masquerade designed to mislead.
  One of the tricks of Heartland's little scheme was to dupe legitimate 
scientists into participating. One of the experts interviewed, Rie 
Oldenberg, the curator at Greenland's Narsaq Museum, was told she was 
participating in a video on Norse history for the Discovery Channel. 
When she found out what she had been duped into, she said: ``I am 
somewhat horrified.''
  Other participants are frequent fliers in the climate denial circus, 
like Willie Soon, who received over a million dollars in funding since 
2001 from the Koch brothers, the American Petroleum Institute, 
ExxonMobil, and other fossil fuel interests. The year the video was 
released, Willie Soon received nearly $20,000 from Free To Choose.
  The Heartland cover letter asked teachers to ``consider the 
possibility'' the science of climate change isn't settled. Even that is 
not new. This echoes the infamous Big Tobacco declaration, ``Doubt is 
our product.'' The heart of the fossil fuel industry's scheme is to 
undermine legitimate science with false doubts. Because of the 
financial stakes behind industry science denial and because of the 
communications advantages propaganda has over real science--you don't 
need to waste a lot of time in peer review, for instance, you go 
straight to the networks--this scheme is a real problem for 
institutions like our schools that cherish and support real science.
  All this masquerade and subterfuge by Heartland Institute looked a 
lot like fraud. Senators Schatz, Warren, Markey, and I wrote to 
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to ask whether DeVos and her staff 
at the Department of Education helped or coordinated with the Heartland 
Institute on this scheme to pollute our classrooms with phony science.
  That simple request drew quite the response from our friends at the 
Heartland Institute. ``Your letter is a monumental misuse of your 
office and a betrayal of the trust of your constituents,'' wrote 
Heartland CEO Joseph Bast. He called our letter ``defamatory'' and 
``despicable.'' ``Shame, shame, shame,'' he proclaimed in bold font--
this, unironically, from that same classy group that put up the 
billboard comparing anyone who accepts climate science to the 
Unabomber, just to give you an idea of their level of shame.
  Even that little outburst is considerably nicer than in 2015 when 
Bast called some of us ``fascists'' and ``ethically challenged . . . 
mental midgets.''
  Why is the Heartland Institute so very touchy? We obviously hit a 
nerve. The lesson is, poke an imposter and the imposter gets very 
agitated. Fortunately, teachers are smart people who follow real 
science. Imposters like Heartland that pretend their stuff is coming 
through an Idea Channel that it isn't, that mimic the name of real 
organizations to try to fool people, that pretend their newsletter is 
real news and package the whole thing up as if it is intended to be 
helpful to teachers face an uphill battle against informed educators.

[[Page 15093]]

  One example, Nebraska recently approved new State standards requiring 
climate change to be taught in schools. According to the Omaha World-
Herald, Nebraska's new standards ``challenge kids to think and act like 
scientists,'' which is exactly what our science classrooms ought to do.
  One Omaha resident encouraged the school board to ``do the ethical 
thing and tell the next generation what's going on with climate.'' A 
science professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln said the 
standards represented ``good solid science, good solid science 
education.''
  This is what we need in science education--real-life scientists from 
real institutions of higher learning engaging and helping our children 
learn. What we don't need are fossil fuel front groups pumping out more 
phony science to pollute public education, just like they pollute our 
oceans and atmosphere.
  I have been pretty heartened to hear about this from teachers working 
in classrooms in my home State of Rhode Island. Holly Emery teaches 
science to seventh and eighth graders at Exeter-West Greenwich Junior 
High School. Her students focus on solutions to climate change--
something we could use a bit more of around here. They examined 
Germany's plan to significantly reduce its carbon emissions. Students 
were so motivated by what they heard, they requested to share their 
projects with other grades in the school. One of Miss Emery's students 
said: ``This is important and the other kids need to know.''
  Students in Jane Ramos's eighth grade science class at Gallagher 
Middle School in Smithfield learn about climates around the world. They 
read, research, and make slides about the human contributions to 
climate change, including the carbon cycle, burning fossil fuels and 
the greenhouse effect, deforestation, livestock practices, and the 
production of methane. They discuss the effects of warmer oceans, 
expansion of water, melting ice, and rising seawater levels. These are 
important issues for Rhode Island, the Ocean State.
  Science students from Brenda Dillmann's class at South Kingstown High 
School planted grass on the Narrow River salt marsh as part of a major 
unit on climate. During the lessons, the students learned about the 
role that salt marshes play as carbon sinks--absorbent carbon from the 
atmosphere. They went out and got dirty and planted by hand some 35,000 
seedlings of 3 different types of salt marsh grasses.
  Since 2007, more than 500 students have become climate experts in 
Kara Ratigan and Renee Hadfield's fourth grade class at James H. 
Eldredge Elementary School in East Greenwich. Ratigan and Hadfield have 
developed a curriculum that integrates climate change across all 
subject areas. For the kids, the year begins with a visit to a local 
assisted living facility, where students pair up with a senior buddy. 
The students interview their senior buddies, asking how the climate has 
changed over time and looking for lessons that can be applied today.
  In their math class, students learn how to read charts and graphs and 
how to frame a convincing argument through data. In social studies, the 
students learn about the regions of the United States, about their 
differing climates, and about how each is affected by climate change. 
In science, the students learn about erosion and weather patterns and 
the effects of human activity on rock, soils, and sediments. Students 
make observations about climate change all around them and delve into 
society's responses to the harms of climate change.
  This past spring, the Norman Bird Sanctuary, in Middletown, hosted 
seventh graders for a beach ecology lesson at nearby Third Beach. The 
director of education, Rachel Holbert, and her staff led a discussion 
with the students about the greenhouse effect associated with burning 
fossil fuels. They explained how the excess heat trapped in the 
atmosphere puts stress on the oceans, undermining the oceans' ability 
to stabilize the global climate and, of course, leading, as we have 
seen, to a higher frequency and strength of extreme weather events, 
such as powerful hurricanes. The kids' lesson ended with a focus on 
solutions. If the oceans are the heart and lungs of the climate, what 
can prevent future damage?
  Teachers like them play such an important and formative role in 
helping the next generation understand the world we live in. They teach 
our children to make observations, collect information, and use 
evidence to formulate conclusions. They are honest and they are decent.
  The fossil fuel industry, on the other hand, is neither honest nor 
decent. The filthy hand of the fossil fuel industry has, regrettably, a 
firm grip on this Congress. There is a reason that we never do anything 
about climate change, and it does not involve the merits of the issue. 
It involves the politics of the industry. We have, perhaps, not yet 
plumbed the bottom of how low they are willing to go, but, surely, this 
is a new low to reach with their game of phony science, masquerade, and 
subterfuge into our children's classrooms, like Ms. Emery's, Ms. 
Ramos's, Ms. Dillmann's, Ms. Ratigan's, and Ms. Hadfield's. These 
honorable, decent teachers help their students gain a fact-based 
understanding of the changing world around them and the issues facing 
our society. Unfortunately, these Heartland Institute materials may 
require those teachers to teach about politics and propaganda as well.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, we are looking at an outline for tax reform 
that helps working families in ways that those families haven't seen 
for almost a decade now--a decade of buying power that didn't go up and 
obligations that did, with more government requirements and less take-
home pay. So we are going to be here for the next few weeks talking 
about what we can do to reverse that situation so that the opportunity 
for those families is reversed and that eventually we also reverse our 
competitiveness so that we create better jobs.
  There are two ways to get more take-home pay. One is for the 
government to take less out of it--and I am for that--and the other one 
is to do things in the Tax Code to make us more competitive so that 
there are better jobs with better pay to start with. If we combine 
those two things--better jobs and better pay--with the government 
taking less out of that higher paycheck, that is really where families 
would like to be. We are going to be here talking about this in a way 
that drives toward a result.
  The Senator from West Virginia is here, and she is basically going to 
start that effort today, as we really now have enough specifics on what 
the Finance Committee is looking at in the Senate and the Ways and 
Means Committee in the House and what the White House is looking at. We 
can begin to explain to American working families why this is the right 
course for them and for our country.
  I am pleased to be joined here by Senator Capito.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Senator Blunt, 
for your leadership.
  I am excited about what we are talking about today. I am excited for 
my State of West Virginia. The main thing that people in West Virginia 
want is a good job. A good job, with more take-home pay and a higher 
wage, is exceedingly important to the families I represent, so tax 
reform and any other policies Congress could support will enhance 
growth and create more job opportunities around the country.
  Let me focus on my State of West Virginia. According to the Economic 
Innovation Group, more than 34 percent of West Virginians are living in 
distressed communities. Unfortunately, that number is the third highest 
of any State in the country. At the

[[Page 15094]]

same time, only 3.4 percent of West Virginians are living in prosperous 
communities.
  There are States that are prosperous and have done very well, but the 
vast majority of our States have really struggled. Only two in five 
communities have seen any job growth in the past 5 years during our so-
called recovery. That is not the definition of a recovery. Since 2010, 
fully 50 percent of U.S. job growth has occurred in just 2 percent of 
our country's counties. Think about that. Economic growth has only 
occurred in 2 percent of the counties across this great country.
  The truth is that most of our country has been mired in economic 
stagnation. We have been standing still. I saw Lou Holtz give a speech 
one time, and he said: If you are standing still, you are going 
backward. If you are not moving forward, you are going backward. There 
has been a slow recovery, but for many West Virginians, there has been 
no recovery at all.
  But it isn't all doom and gloom in our State because we have an 
opportunity for change--the change we really need that helps our 
struggling, working-class families, that changes and revitalizes our 
distressed communities, changes that lead to economic growth and 
creates opportunity for future generations.
  In fact, West Virginia, in the first quarter, grew by 3 percent. We 
were the second fastest in growth in the entire Nation. To be sure, one 
quarter of growth is not a trend, but it does demonstrate the potential 
that we have if we do it right here for our citizens. The potential of 
capital growth is there, but one of the biggest drags on our economy in 
recent years has been excessive regulations, which we have addressed 
quite a bit here in the first 9 months of President Trump's term. We 
have worked hard to bring reason into the regulatory environment and 
also our burdensome Tax Code.
  What can we do? We can reduce taxes that impede our growth. Let's 
think about our small businesses. In many States, they are the major 
economic driver of our economy. In my State of West Virginia, 95.6 
percent of the businesses are small businesses. They employ nearly half 
of the West Virginia private sector workforce, so nearly half of West 
Virginians are working in what is defined as a small business. Yet they 
can face a tax rate as high as 39.6 percent. Think about that. If you 
own a bakery or an accounting firm, in a 5-day workweek, you have to 
work Monday and Tuesday just to pay the government. It is no wonder 
that small businesses have found it difficult to open, let alone 
succeed, in many parts of our country.
  The United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed 
world. A lot of people are asking, how does that influence me? It is 
influencing the working American because the working American is 
bearing the brunt of that tax. Because of our outdated Tax Code, real 
wages for most workers have barely increased over the years. West 
Virginians understand that, as hard as they work, the government is 
taking more money from them. It costs them more money every time they 
go to the grocery store, every time they buy clothing for their 
children, every time they try to buy a new car. It is just more 
expensive with no growth in their wages to be able to bear that 
expense. It feels impossible to get ahead.
  We see that all around our States and localities. We see people 
thinking, I can't get ahead, and I haven't been able to over the last 5 
to 10 years. I am starting to think it is impossible.
  But we can fix this. It is not impossible. We can create an 
environment in which there is more opportunity available and wages are 
higher by modifying our Tax Code. We can have a simpler system with 
lower rates, and families can see relief from the complexity of our Tax 
Code. I have seen it stacked up before. If you haven't, I am 5 feet 3 
inches, and I think it is taller than I am when stacked up page to 
page.
  Along with the complexities, people need to keep more of their hard-
earned money. It will help our companies grow. When our companies grow, 
what happens? We have more jobs, fairer taxes, and best of all, besides 
more jobs, we have higher paychecks. With more earnings, companies can 
hire new workers, increase wages, and invest in new developments. These 
are changes that I think West Virginians are hungry for.
  The time is now. The stagnation we have felt over the last decade has 
worn us down, has made us lose our optimism about being able to have a 
better life than our parents had or our children thinking they could 
have a better life than we had. You know, the American dream is sort of 
fading for a lot of people, so comprehensive tax reform can provide 
that kind of relief.
  I am excited that we can create that environment of optimism, that 
environment of confidence in not just our companies and our ability to 
create more jobs and raise our paychecks, but that confidence that we 
need as a country that, yes, we can live in our communities in rural 
America, like West Virginia or North Carolina or Missouri, that we can 
live in those communities, have a great chance to move ahead, have a 
good retirement when we decide we are at the end of the line in terms 
of our working career, and also pass on to the next generation a 
competitive environment that can compete financially anywhere in the 
world.
  We know we can compete anywhere in the world in a lot of different 
areas. Right now, we are on an uneven playing field. When we change 
this and when we fix this--because we can fix this--that will change 
the playing field for every single American who gets up in the morning 
or goes to work in the evening, to have the confidence that things are 
going to be better for them.
  I thank the Senator from Missouri, and I look forward to talking 
about this over the next several weeks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, when the Senator from West Virginia talked 
about the 40 percent that can come out of your hard work, the 2 days a 
week of a regular 5-day workweek--and many families are wishing they 
could get back to a 5-day workweek because they have really been 
stagnant in terms of the opportunities for their families for a long 
time. It is a good way to think about how hard families work just so 
the government can get more of their money.
  This is a discussion about how the government can take less of your 
money. For everybody listening who wonders, ``Well, if the government 
is going to take less money--I thought the government already had a 
deficit''--we need to work on that. One way to work on that and the 
best way to work on that is to have more taxpayers--not higher tax 
rates but more taxpayers. We are looking at some tax changes here that 
would allow more taxpayers to share the burden, hopefully paying taxes, 
as I said earlier this afternoon, on a bigger paycheck to start with. 
You can take less money out of that paycheck, and the government gets 
more money because we have more people paying those taxes and more 
growth.
  The 70-year average on growth since World War II is 3.4 percent. 
Every year, the economy was that much bigger than the year before. That 
ought to be achievable. For 70 years, we achieved that. We should be 
able to get back to that again if we do the right things. But for the 
last 8 to 9 years, that growth has been less than 2 percent.
  Our problem is with jobs that aren't growing as they should in terms 
of what they pay and the government is not having the money it needs to 
defend the country and do other things. A lot of that could be solved 
by an economy that is thriving again. There has been 10 years of not 
seeing that happen.
  We combine good tax policy with good regulatory policy, which means 
the regulatory excesses of the last few years clearly are being brought 
back under control. The Federal Government is beginning to look at 
regulation and being sure it is commonsense regulation again. Consumer 
confidence is growing. Every single month we look at those numbers, and 
they generally have been better each month than the month before. They 
certainly have been better the last 7 months than they

[[Page 15095]]

were in any previous 7-month period of time for some time now. When we 
have a good tax policy and a good competitive policy, then before you 
know it, things begin to happen.
  On stagnant income, you can see a study here that says, well, maybe 
the income hasn't gone up, but because things are a little less 
expensive and inflation has been so low and so many of the things 
families need are less expensive, they really have more money than they 
used to have. Try to explain that to mothers and fathers who are trying 
to buy five pairs of tennis shoes for five kids. You as a parent are 
trying to do something for your family every week or so that is a 
little bit extraordinary. If you don't have extra money, you cannot do 
any of that.
  Over 75 percent of full-time workers in America say, when asked, that 
they are living paycheck to paycheck. Over 20 percent of Americans say 
they have zero savings. A much higher number says they have less than 
$400 or $500 in savings. These are people whose parents and 
grandparents worked hard to save whatever they could and would like to 
see that ability happen again.
  We need lower taxes. We need better jobs. New jobs are impacted in 
Missouri, where 97 percent of all our businesses are small businesses. 
Most new job creation is created by small businesses. We ought to be 
sure that no matter what we do in the Tax Code, we do it in a way that 
allows small business to compete with big business in an effective way.
  As for competitiveness, in the last 15 years, I think we are not as 
competitive as we used to be. Our corporate taxes used to be right in 
the middle. With corporations competing around the world, we were right 
in the middle. The middle in 2003 was 30 percent; our tax rate was 35 
percent. The middle in 2015 was 22 percent; our tax rate was 35 
percent. If you are going to compete, if you are going to create jobs, 
you are going to have to be sure you know how to compete.
  Mr. President, you and I were able to see--at least I was able to 
see--for the first time yesterday, not being on the Finance Committee, 
the page that is generally agreed to as our starting point. There were 
lower rates for families, in fact, doubling the individual exemption. 
Today, if you are a couple, you start paying taxes after the first 
$12,000 of income. Under this proposal that exemption doubles to 
$12,000 each, so you would start paying taxes only after you have made 
the first $24,000. It is sort of a new tax bracket here--the zero tax 
bracket. It is the tax bracket in which you don't pay income taxes on 
the first $24,000, and then you start paying in a simpler system after 
that.
  People would like the tax system to be simpler. People would like to 
have that postcard filing opportunity, where you say: This is how much 
money I made, here is my W-2 form that proves it, here is my standard 
exemption, and here is whatever else I am going to be allowed to 
exempt--my contributions to church, other charities, my mortgage 
payment. Those appear to be exemptions that will be left in the Code, 
but everyone would understand those. Suddenly, you have about three 
lines, and maybe, by the time you get to those three lines, your tax 
obligation goes away.
  The amount of money people pay to get their taxes figured out in 
America would be the gross national product of lots of countries. We 
need a system that is simpler than that.
  The death tax--you know, if you are a family farm or a small business 
and someone has stayed on that farm with you from your family or stayed 
in that business with you from your family, it is very hard to figure 
out, when the mom or dad dies, who created what wealth as you work side 
by side to create the wealth. By the way, you don't have any wealth 
that you haven't paid taxes on already. You don't have anything you 
have accumulated that you haven't paid taxes on multiple times. There 
is an opportunity here to say that we are no longer going to go through 
that after trying to tax family farms and small businesses. The death 
tax is exactly that, and it doesn't work.
  We are going to work to make America more competitive, American jobs 
more competitive. Again, one way to create more take-home pay--the best 
way to create more take-home pay--is better jobs to start with. We can 
have those better jobs if we work hard to be focused on competition, on 
regulation that makes sense, on tax policy that not only is simple but 
that everybody believes is fair. We have the greatest compliance of any 
country, I believe, in the history of the world, but people are less 
likely to comply if they don't think that the tax policy is fair and 
easily understood and means the same to everyone else. You shouldn't 
have to have the greatest accountants in the world to figure out what 
your taxes are or, frankly, to figure out what somebody else's taxes 
likely are. Fairness is important here, simplicity is important here, 
and competition and better jobs are important here.
  (The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore assumed the Chair.)
  We need better jobs for working families. I think that should be the 
flag that flies highest as we begin to look at how we reduce the tax 
burden and increase the opportunity for more people to be paying taxes 
because we have more people with better jobs.
  I know two of the leaders here. That guy who just left the Chair, the 
Senator from North Carolina, and the Senator from Georgia have been 
real advocates for what we are trying to do now and also advocates for 
getting it done. We not only need to have this debate; we need to get 
this done.
  In my view, this needs to be done this year. It needs to be impacting 
our economy by the first quarter of next year. I would suggest that 
nobody in this body understands the importance of competition more than 
the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Perdue.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I would like to echo what my esteemed 
colleague from Missouri has outlined in the last few minutes. His 
leadership on this issue is pronounced, and his experience on this 
floor is not to be underestimated. I appreciate his leadership on this, 
and I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this.
  Before my remarks today on this historic opportunity before us right 
now to finally, after 30 years, become competitive again with the rest 
of the world, I would like to preface my remarks with a personal 
comment. My mom and dad were schoolteachers. We were middle class. I 
grew up working on our family farm. My mom and dad were really the 
first two in their extended families who had ever been to college. All 
of my relatives were farmers in the South.
  I think the Tax Code that we have had for the last 100 years, since 
it was instituted in our country, has created an imbalance. We can see 
right now that we are losing competitiveness with the rest of the 
world. We have a growing disparity among income levels in this country, 
borne out somewhat by the derivative results of an archaic, out-of-
control, out-of-date, and inappropriate tax policy.
  Today, we have two crises in America. I have spoken on this floor a 
lot about this. We have a global security crisis that cannot be argued 
against. It is deadly. It is serious. We also have a debt crisis, and 
they are interwoven because of our inability to discipline ourselves on 
this floor over the last 30 years, particularly the last 16 years. We 
now have $20 trillion of debt, and that is the result of an explosion 
in the size of our Federal Government.
  In 2000, the size of our government--these are constant 2016 dollars. 
The size of our government in 2000 was $2.4 trillion. ``Trillion'' is a 
big number, and it gets a lot of zeros out there. I have a hard time 
even digesting what that is. But 2.4--I can relate to the size that it 
is today, and it was $4 trillion last year. So our Federal Government 
has grown over 60 percent in 16 short years. There was one Republican 
President and one Democratic President. My experience here in the last 
2 years has been that there are no innocent parties in terms of this 
out-of-control spending on the part of the Federal Government.
  One of the solutions to this debt crisis is a growing economy. 
President

[[Page 15096]]

Trump, from day one, has said that growing the economy is job one, but 
it was part of a bigger strategy in his first year.
  There were four components to the strategy in the first year. One was 
that we had to get Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court, and 
that was done. Second, we had to roll back on some of the more onerous 
regulations that were stifling the very life out of the free enterprise 
system. To date, over 800 regulations have been removed from our 
government. Third was healthcare. We are still trying to fix a 
collapsing ObamaCare system that is hurting people back home. Lastly, 
we had to reform our tax package so that we could become competitive 
with the rest of the world and get our economy going again.
  Job one this year was to get the economy going again. To some degree, 
it is beginning to move. Consumer confidence is at a 16-year high. CEO 
confidence is at a 20-year high. Why? Because they finally see rhetoric 
in Washington talking about the things they have been asking for for 
over 10 years, and that is relief from some of the pressure the Federal 
Government has put on the free enterprise system that keeps us from 
being competitive with the rest of the world.
  I have lived around the world, and I have run businesses. I started 
my career working for an hourly wage in construction. I understand that 
America--and I can say this with some authority--has some of the best 
workers anywhere in the world and in the history of the world. On the 
back of that, we have innovation, capital formation, and the rule of 
law. That is what has created this economic miracle over the last 7 
years, but we have taken it for granted. What we have done is allow 
other countries because of our immigration policy, because of our tax 
policy, and because of our regulatory policy, particularly of late--we 
have lost our competitive edge.
  We believe that to get this economy going, President Trump is right. 
I am absolutely committed to the strategy President Trump has laid out. 
It really is only three things, and we have already started on two with 
his leadership.
  No. 1 is regulatory reform, which I talked about.
  No. 2 is that we have to get this energy policy going. What the 
President has already done with the Keystone Pipeline and the Clean 
Power Plan has set the stage to allow us to become the energy czar, if 
you will, of the next century right here in North America.
  Lastly--and maybe most importantly--is to get this Tax Code so we can 
be competitive with the rest of the world. Let's talk about what 
competitive means. In 1986, the last time we actually made any real, 
substantive change to the Tax Code, the United States, after those 
changes, had the third lowest corporate tax rate in the world. What 
that did is allow us to compete with the rest of the world and set the 
stage for the next 10 to 15 years of economic boom that is now part of 
history.
  What has happened now, though, is that the rest of the world has 
caught up. They have lowered their corporate tax rates. They have 
simplified their regulatory environment and taken the burden off some 
of their people. Today we have absolutely the highest corporate tax 
rate in the world, and we are the last country of the major OECD 
countries--the 39 countries--to actually still have a repatriation tax. 
This is unbelievable. We have been so arrogant as a country that we 
have let the rest of the world outrun us to the next stop, and they are 
now outcompeting us.
  How does this affect the average man and woman on the street? Well, 
this I believe--the repatriation tax and indeed the lack of 
competitiveness in our Tax Code--is an absolute tax on American 
workers. Why? Because right now, twice as many companies in the United 
States are being purchased by companies outside our country, as 
compared to companies that our U.S. companies are buying outside the 
United States. That is nothing but a reflection on the imbalance of our 
high tax environment here at home, and the people who suffer from that 
are the people who buy products in the United States and the people who 
work for companies that sell products in the United States. By 
companies, I am talking about friends of mine who have small businesses 
in South Georgia and have four employees. I am also talking about 
friends who run large corporations, multinational corporations. All of 
the above contribute to our economy.
  We have unwanted acquisitions. Just look at recent history. Burger 
King was bought by a Canadian firm, Timmy's. Look at the beer industry 
in St. Louis. Today, most of those companies are owned by Brazilians 
and Belgians. These are not mean CEOs who decided to move their 
corporate headquarters, no. This is a reflection of a competitive 
disadvantage in which someone outside the country has used our Tax Code 
and our tax dollars to actually buy U.S. companies to the detriment of 
U.S. workers. How can anyone be against lowering our corporate tax rate 
and doing away with this repatriation tax?
  The Business Roundtable in 2004 documents--and this is interesting--
that if our corporate rate today were just 20 percent, over 4,700 
companies that have been purchased over the last couple of years would 
still be in the United States. I think that is tantamount to a marching 
order for us here in the Senate to make this change.
  The way forward is very simple. This is what is talked about in this 
tax package that we are beginning to talk about publicly, and this is 
only after 9 months of regular order in committee with multiple 
hearings. We heard in the healthcare debate: Oh, this is not regular 
order. We didn't have the chance to talk about it and put amendments in 
and all this.
  Well, this time, in tax, it will be by regular order. There will be 
amendments. There will be debates. There have already been multiple 
hearings. We are looking for input from all corners.
  This strategy has three parts: One, we have to lower this tax on our 
American workers--lower the corporate tax rate to be competitive with 
the rest of the world. Two, eliminate this repatriation tax as every 
other country in the world has done. And, last, we have to simplify our 
individual Tax Code.
  My mom and dad were schoolteachers. They were proud of their ability 
to pay their taxes, but they were burdened by that. Right now, we don't 
need to do that. We have to find a way to make this Tax Code more 
equitable for everyone.
  Nearly 90 percent of Americans want the code changed. Over two-thirds 
think taxes are too high. Almost two-thirds say that lowering the 
corporate tax rate--again, they get the fact that this tax rate is 
lower in the rest of the world and that it is a penalty on the workers 
here in the United States.
  Nearly every CEO surveyed by the BRT, Business Roundtable, said that 
delays on tax would damage our economy. Here is why. We just heard the 
Senator from Missouri talk about timing. We have to have a sense of 
urgency on this for one reason; that is, if you want to affect the 
economy next year, you have to get this done this year. Budgets are 
being finalized for next year right now. Capital investments have 
already been made in terms of determining how much and where and how 
soon they will be making it. More importantly, during the back half of 
next year, we will have the holiday season, which offers up a 
significant portion of our retail sales for the year, and those 
decisions are being made right now--before the purchases that are made 
next spring.
  We have major CEOs weighing in on this. Randall Stephenson, CEO at 
AT&T, said that if we get the corporate tax rate lowered, ``We will 
step it up''--meaning their capital investments. ``Every additional 
billion dollars . . . is 7,000 hard-hat jobs putting fiber in the 
ground, cell sites up, and antennas on cell sites.''
  David Abney, CEO of UPS, said: ``We'd like to bring some of those 
foreign earnings back, invest them into our network here.''
  Finally, Mark Weinberger is the CEO of one of the major accounting 
firms we have here in the United States. They are multinational, so 
they have

[[Page 15097]]

experience around the world in this with Ernst & Young. Actually, 
through these tax changes, they will stand to lose revenue because we 
are simplifying how people calculate what they owe in taxes. His quote 
is this: ``I think it's truly a bipartisan issue''--I agree--
``something everybody can rally around . . . it's urgent for our 
country.''
  To get this done, we have to move past partisan politics and 
Washington games. We saw how we disappointed the American people--both 
sides. The Democrats in 2009 crammed ObamaCare down the throats of 
America through a supermajority. We now know it has failed. Republicans 
were not able to fix it this year, so far. So we all need to look at 
this tax issue as a bipartisan issue to fix this once and for all for 
the people back home.
  We can't get bogged down in this scoring--this financial modeling 
that is only done this way in Washington. People back home don't run 
their small businesses this way. They don't run big businesses this 
way. They sure don't run their personal finances this way. We can't get 
bogged down in bad numbers and bad timing coming from the Congressional 
Budget Office--not this time. It is too important. The only score that 
matters to me is GDP growth and the jobs that it creates--the change of 
lives that it can affect for the people back home.
  I hear people talking all the time: I work part time; can you help me 
get more hours? Wages at the low-income level have not grown at all in 
the last 30 years. That is terrible in the United States. We can fix 
that. It is a function of the thing I am talking about right now--
American companies that lost their competitiveness because of the rules 
here in Washington. This is a 1-percent increase in our GDP. Say we 
grow from 1.9 percent to 2.9 percent. That alone is $3 trillion of 
revenue over the next 10 years. That is doable. Everybody in this room 
knows that.
  But we have to change this Tax Code to put people back to work, to 
get our economy going again, and to become competitive with the rest of 
the world. The end result will be to address, finally, this debt 
crisis.
  The reason we want this Tax Code changed is to put people back to 
work and to change lives here in America. But the long-term benefit of 
this is that it gives us more flexibility and more capital with which 
to solve this long-term debt crisis. Growing the economy alone will not 
fix this debt crisis, but we will not fix the debt crisis unless and 
until we fix this Tax Code.
  We need to have a sense of urgency like never before in order to get 
this done this year. I echo the comments of my colleagues, and I thank 
you for this opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I was presiding when the colloquy started 
with my colleagues here to talk about tax reform. I had not intended to 
speak today, and I am sure my staffers are scrambling, wondering what 
the boss will say. I want to weigh in with this discussion mainly 
because of the personal perspective of a leader who has seen the 
positive impacts of having the courage, focus, and discipline to 
deliver on tax reform.
  Back in 2011, I was in my third term. Republicans had the majority, 
and I became speaker of the house. When I came in February of 2011, it 
was reported to me that we had a $2.5 billion structural deficit. We 
had the fourth highest unemployment rate in the Nation and we had 6 
months to figure out how to balance the budget. So it was 
counterintuitive to a lot of people that we would spend time on 
regulatory reform and tax reform--particularly tax reform--reducing the 
amount of revenue coming in at the same time we were in a deficit 
ourselves. But in the first 6 months that we were in the majority, we 
cut the sales tax. Then we went over a 2-year period, even with that 
$2.5 billion structural deficit, to make the changes in the corporate 
tax and the income tax. It took North Carolina from the 44th most taxed 
State--in other words, there were only 5 States ahead of us for the 
highest tax burden in the United States--now down to No. 12. It was one 
of the worst growing economies, and it now ranks in the top five in the 
Nation, and it is one of the fastest growing economies in the Nation. 
We created over 250,000 jobs and actually put North Carolina on the map 
by all references--CEO measures and by independent organizations. It is 
the State where businesses want to set up and do business.
  We took the corporate tax from 6.9 down to 2.5. We took personal 
income tax rates from 7.75 down to 5.49. We got people back to work.
  Along the way, we had our challenges. Everybody in Washington is for 
tax reform. They are for tax relief. They will come into your office 
and tell you: Let's get her going. Then on the side they will say: 
except for that one righteous exemption I may need. We have to have 
Members who have the courage to do tax reform that helps working 
families, that creates jobs, and that silences the people who want to 
take this exemption or that exemption away, so we do what is right for 
the generation that is about to look for jobs and the people who need a 
job today.
  They want their businesses to grow. They want their economies to 
thrive. They want the United States to be the strong, great economy 
that it can be. It is going to take courage. It is going to take 
discipline. It is going to take time--but only so much time.
  I believe this Congress, this Senate, over the course of a few 
months, if we focus on it and with the support of the President and in 
collaboration with the House, can get this done. We have to get it 
done. We promised the American people last year that if we had 
majorities, we would do what we had to do to deliver on this promise. 
It can be done. A lot of times, people ask me what keeps me up at 
night. I tell them two things: coffee and the national debt. Coffee is 
for the obvious reasons, but why the national debt? I will tell you 
why. Because when I have people on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the 
service chiefs come into the Senate Armed Services Committee and say 
the single greatest threat to our national security is our debt, we 
should take notice. These are people who are skilled in warfare. They 
are people who know how to take the fight to the enemy. When they think 
the greatest threat to this Nation is our national debt, we had better 
take that seriously.
  How do you resolve the national debt? You grow the economy. How do 
you grow the economy? You create jobs and help businesses throughout. 
How do you do that? You do that through tax reform. You also take 
criticism that is going to be waged by some people on the far left when 
we talk about corporate tax reform. They are going to say: How could 
you favor the big guy over the little guy? I don't know about you all, 
but I worked for companies before in my life. When I was 19 and living 
in a trailer park, I was working for a corporation. I was a little guy 
working for that corporation. Fortunately, in the 1980s, we had a 
President who had the wisdom to know that, if you reduced the tax 
burden on corporations, more little guys like me--that 19-year-old 
living in a trailer park--could get a job--a better-paying job--and, 
ultimately, have enough money to put himself through school.
  So when we get into this argument, don't take the bait by some people 
who will say that because we are focusing on corporate taxes and 
reducing the tax burden on businesses, that is somehow a guy in a suit 
trying to help out a business. That is a guy who has worked his way 
from that trailer park now into the U.S. Senate and benefited when 
Congress had the courage to reduce taxes and get the economy back on 
track. That is what we better do. That is what we promised. That is 
what we are here to do today. The time is now to get it done.
  The President has shown wisdom in the blueprint--and our leadership 
here, in terms of the broad strokes about what tax reform needs to look 
like. Now it is our job--each and every individual Member of the Senate 
and the House--to deliver on the promise to produce tax reform to help 
the little guy and to get this economy going to be the great economy 
that it has been

[[Page 15098]]

in the past, and I have every reason to believe that it will be so in 
the future.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________