[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20089-20100]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en 
bloc, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nominations of J. Paul Compton, Jr., 
of Alabama, to be General Counsel of the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development; and Owen West, of Connecticut, to be an Assistant 
Secretary of Defense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5:30 
p.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Texas.


                         Tax Cuts and Jobs Bill

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, listening to my friend, the Democratic 
leader, leads me to conclude that he and his party have given up on the 
American dream. They want to settle for the status quo, which is 
stagnant growth of our economy and jobs where people haven't seen an 
increase in their wages for years. They even seem to be rooting for 
failure. That seems to be the attitude of our missing-in-action 
congressional Democrats on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
  We, on the other hand, think American families need more take-home 
pay, higher wages, more jobs, and a competitive economy, and we believe 
they shouldn't have to settle for less. I will come back to that in a 
moment.
  I do want to talk about tax reform and make the perhaps obvious 
statement that tax reform is hard. That is the reason it hasn't been 
done since 1986. It is even harder when we have a political party that 
is determined to fight against every single proposal we have made in 
our tax cut and tax reform bill, including ones they themselves have 
championed in the past.
  I have heard the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, 
Senator Wyden, talk about corporate giveaways, and the Democratic 
leader just alluded to the same thing. Yet we are embracing the same 
sort of approach they took in previous proposals and that President 
Obama advocated for in his State of the Union Address in 2011, when he 
asked Republicans and Democrats alike to work together to lower the 
highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world because he knew 
it was chasing jobs overseas, and he knew it was important to bring 
that investment and those jobs back to the United States. That is 
exactly what our bill does.
  My friend Kevin Brady, the chairman of the House Ways and Means 
Committee, called tax reform a Rubik's Cube. He is right, but now, 
thankfully, we have figured out how to solve that Rubik's Cube.
  We confess that this legislation is not perfect, but it is good, and 
it is much better than the status quo, which our Democratic colleagues 
seem to have settled for. Last week, the conference committee met 
between the House and the Senate, and members, including myself, had 
many difficult conversations about how to reconcile the differences 
between the two bills. Those discussions were necessary, they were 
prudent, and they were productive. We now have a consensus about how to 
get this bill across the finish line and to the President's desk before 
Christmas.
  We will vote on this final bill after the House does tomorrow--
hopefully by tomorrow night. Perhaps it will carry over into Wednesday 
morning, but we will get it on the President's desk for him to sign 
into law before Christmas, as we pledged.
  I want to talk for just a few moments about why I am so excited at 
the prospect--and so are so many other people across the country--
because oftentimes their words get lost in the chatter, some of which 
is designed to mislead and presents an inaccurate picture of just how 
consequential this tax reform will be. Their voices--those who believe 
this good bill will help them--deserve to be heard.
  Let me first talk about manufacturing. There was a survey released 
last week that showed historically high optimism among 14,000 small and 
large employers in the manufacturing sector. How long have we heard 
that we need to bring manufacturing back to the United States rather 
than outsourcing it to Mexico or China or other places around the 
world? Well, we tried to address that, and I think we met with some 
success because more than 94 percent of manufacturers are now positive 
about their company's outlook. Nearly 64 percent said that tax reform 
would encourage their company to increase capital spending. Capital 
spending is what goes into infrastructure, equipment, and things that 
allow them to become more productive and to create more jobs. A 
majority of these manufacturers said that they would indeed expand 
their businesses and they would hire more workers after this bill is 
signed into law by the President. In fact, manufacturers predict that 
the number of jobs could surge to 2 million by the year 2025. Now there 
are roughly 350,000 American manufacturing jobs, so a leap to 2 million 
is almost fantastic--hard to contemplate--but very exciting if true.
  The second group I want to mention that is very excited about the Tax 
Cuts and Jobs Act is small businesses. We know small businesses are the 
economic engine of the country. Indeed, 70 percent of new jobs are 
created not by Fortune 500 company businesses but by small businesses. 
As one piece in the Houston Chronicle recently pointed out, the 2.6 
million small businesses that call Texas home are enthusiastic because 
tax reform will provide them much needed relief.
  Small businesses, of course, all have to pay taxes, which is 
burdensome enough, but they also have to spend hours and money to 
comply with our unnecessarily complex tax laws. According to a 2017 
survey by the National Small Business Association, 58 percent of small 
businesses reported that the administrative burden of Federal taxes 
posed a greater challenge than the cost of the taxes themselves. The 
burden of compliance was worse than the check they had to write to the 
Federal Government. The Houston op-ed put the matter succinctly. It 
said:

       For large corporations that can afford a small army of 
     lawyers and accountants, the tax laws are a nuisance. For 
     small businesses, they are a nightmare.

  Now that situation will change. Our bill will simplify the Tax Code 
by eliminating many special deductions and credits while broadening the 
base and bringing down rates.
  To those cynics here inside the beltway who roll their eyes, who 
think that changes to the business provisions of the code don't matter, 
I would point out two more important pieces of news. First, the Federal 
Reserve, an independent government institution, recently said that this 
tax package is one of the factors that led them to increase their 
projections for growth next year. That is welcome, to say the least. 
Tax reform, said Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, last appointed by 
President Obama, will boost spending and

[[Page 20090]]

could do the same for productivity. So the Federal Reserve has raised 
its growth projections for next year, particularly in response to what 
we are doing.
  For those who worry about deficits--that we are cutting taxes too 
much--and who don't believe the economy will grow to compensate for 
those cuts in taxes, all they need to do is look at the projection of 
the Federal Reserve. They currently project the economy to grow at 2.1 
percent, but she said that next year it could go to 2.5 percent. So 
even if you believe that very conservative estimate, that is enough 
growth to compensate for the cut in taxes and the loss of revenue next 
year, but we expect that will continue and will grow over the next 10 
years.
  It is another thing to note how the rest of the world is reacting to 
what we are doing here. To name but one example, China is worried, 
which should tell us something. According to a Wall Street Journal 
story printed last week, China sees these tax plans as making the 
United States a much more attractive place to invest, which means less 
investment will occur in China. One official in Beijing has called our 
tax plan a huge and imminent danger that can't be ignored. China is 
worried that job creators will relocate here in America, which is a 
well-founded concern and one of the goals of this tax bill. That is 
exactly what they will do when we lower the corporate rate and go to a 
territorial system. Rather than taxing these businesses twice and 
encouraging them to keep the money they earn and the jobs they create 
overseas, we encourage them to bring them back to America by making our 
businesses more internationally competitive.
  So to summarize what we are seeing already, and we haven't even 
passed the bill yet--the conference report, at least--we have passed 
the Senate bill, the House bill, and now the conference report, which 
is the reconciled version between the House and the Senate versions, 
was released Friday.
  To summarize what we have seen already, nationally, manufacturers are 
raving about the tax plan. In places like Texas, small businesses 
desperately need the relief this bill offers. The Federal Reserve, an 
independent financial body of the Federal Government, has increased 
their growth estimates, in part, based upon the tax relief provided in 
this bill. And our chief competitor in the global economy is startled 
by what we are doing and afraid of what it might mean in terms of 
America's competitiveness globally.
  Put all this together and what do you have? A brief snapshot of the 
huge economic impact of the tax overhaul that will be signed by the 
President in the next few days. Signs of that impact are all around us, 
almost everywhere I look.
  I know of at least one major airline--Southwest Airlines--that has 
already announced big plans as to what they plan to do with their tax 
savings. With the benefits afforded by this tax reform, they said that 
they will purchase new aircraft. Well, this means more jobs for the 
people who build those aircraft. It means more jobs for the pilots and 
the flight attendants who travel on them. It means better customer 
experiences, and it may even mean lower fares for consumers.
  Let's talk about what this bill does for Americans who get up and go 
to work every day and just try to eke out a living, providing for their 
families. Well, I will tell you, for those worried about how tax reform 
will affect real people's actual lives, let me give you a couple of 
concrete examples. Let's take a single teacher making $50,000 a year. 
She will see a significant reduction in her tax burden--between 17 and 
20 percent--less taxes that she will have to pay. This comes from a 
lower marginal rate and a higher standard deduction. How about a 
married couple with three children and with median earnings of $75,000 
a year? Well, their tax bill will decrease, as well, by as much as 
$2,000 from a lower rate and a higher child tax credit.
  As I have said before, maybe some of our Democratic friends don't 
believe this is a big deal; maybe they don't care about those American 
families living paycheck to paycheck, who would welcome an additional 
$2,000 each year. Their actions make me think they are OK with the 
status quo because they have refused to even participate in the 
process, and they have been rooting for failure every step along the 
way.
  Well, we saw the latest example of this over the weekend when a 
leftwing website, masquerading as a legitimate news outlet, led by a 
former staffer of the junior Senator from Vermont, published what it 
advertised as a breaking news story about the final bill. This story 
breathlessly claimed, without a shred of evidence, that a provision had 
been airdropped into the final draft in secret in order to secure the 
vote of a Member who would supposedly personally benefit from it. This 
is a salacious tale from beginning to end. It was also completely false 
and invented.
  As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have joined with 
my colleagues over the last year to investigate the efforts of Russian 
intelligence operatives to undermine public confidence in our last 
elections. Well, the way this phony news story broke and was picked up 
on social media and in the mainstream media would make a Russian 
intelligence officer proud. The whole purpose of this exercise--this 
false and invented story--was to undermine public confidence in this 
tax reform package that we will pass, perhaps as early as tomorrow, to 
be signed by the President, perhaps before Christmas.
  Some of our friends on the other side of the aisle and their allies 
in the so-called mainstream media ran with it in a dishonest attempt to 
derail us from passing the bill and undermine the reputation or 
integrity of one of our fellow Senators--all from a made-up story. 
Again, the Russian intelligence officials--it is well-documented by 
now--through a combination of cyber theft, propaganda, creative use of 
social media, and a gullible mainstream media, undermined American 
confidence in our most basic obligation, an institution of our 
government, which is our election system. But what we saw happen this 
weekend, as I said, would have made a Russian intelligence officer 
proud.
  As a letter from Chairman Hatch, who is chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee, makes clear today, this website, which, by the way, 
also posted a false report about an amendment I had introduced several 
weeks ago and later had to correct it, spread a false story 
irresponsibly and dishonestly. In his letter, Chairman Hatch writes:

       It takes a great deal of imagination--and likely no small 
     amount of partisanship--to argue that a provision that has 
     been public for over a month, debated on the floor of the 
     House of Representatives, included in a House-passed bill, 
     and identified by [the Joint Committee on Taxation] as an 
     issue requiring compromise between conferees is somehow a 
     covert and last-minute addition to the conference report.

  It reminds me of another quote sometimes attributed to Mark Twain, 
perhaps apocryphally, who supposedly said: A lie can travel halfway 
around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. Well, a 
lie can travel even faster than that today because of social media.
  Shame on those who would perpetuate lies in an effort to deny the 
American people a much needed tax cut and tax relief. Thank goodness 
that attitude isn't shared by most Americans and by the Texans I 
represent who want and deserve much better than the same old same old. 
They don't believe we have to settle for the status quo. We are going 
to give them something better. We are going to keep our promise, and I 
can't wait until this bill gets on the President's desk.
  Let me just close by saying that I am a proud son of a World War II 
veteran. My dad was in the Army Air Corps, flew B-17s out of Molesworth 
Air Force Base in England over Nazi Germany during the end of World War 
II. He was a member of the 8th Air Force, 303rd Bomb Group. On his 26th 
mission, he was shot down and captured as a prisoner of war. Thank 
goodness he survived, came home, met my mom, married, raised a family, 
and became a productive member of civilian society after his military 
service. But I remember, as if it were yesterday, what my parents said 
they wanted for me, my brother, and my sister. It is what parents of 
that entire generation wanted for their children and grandchildren.

[[Page 20091]]

They wanted to know that their sacrifice, their willingness to fight 
and win America's wars against terrible tyrants, such as Adolph 
Hitler--that the consequence of their sacrifice and their service would 
be a better standard of living, a safer world, and a better quality of 
life. In short, what they wanted for us and what I want for my children 
and what I believe every American parent wants for their child or their 
children is exactly what my parents wanted for me and my sister and my 
brother. We sometimes call that the American dream.
  Some of us believe that the American dream is still alive, that we 
don't have to settle for second place. We don't have to settle for the 
status quo. We don't have to settle for flat wages and fewer jobs. We 
can do better. We believe we have done better in this piece of 
legislation, which will help reawaken the slumbering giant of the 
American economy. It will put Americans back to work. It will mean more 
take-home pay. It will mean a better standard of living, but, 
surprisingly--and disappointingly--our colleagues across the aisle want 
no part of it. I hope they haven't given up on that American dream. I 
haven't given up, and I don't believe Americans have given up on that 
dream.
  I yield the floor.
  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. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous that the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter 
from Chairman Hatch be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                         Committee on Finance,

                                Washington, DC, December 18, 2017.
     Hon. Bob Corker,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Corker: Thank you for your letter dated 
     yesterday.
       I am disgusted by press reports that have distorted one 
     particular aspect of the conference agreement on H.R. 1, the 
     Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The reports have focused on the final 
     version of the 20 percent pass-through deduction, the 
     proposed new Section 199A. As the author of this provision 
     and the vice chairman of the conference committee, I can 
     speak with authority about the process by which the 
     conference committee reached its final position.
       There are two false assertions contained in these reports, 
     and I would like to correct the record on both.
       First, some have asserted that a new provision was crafted 
     for real estate developers and was ``airdropped'' into the 
     conference agreement. Second, reports have implied that you 
     had some role in advocating for or negotiating the inclusion 
     of this provision.
       Both assertions are categorically false. With respect to 
     the second, I am unaware of any attempt by you or your staff 
     to contact anyone on the conference committee regarding this 
     provision or any related policy matter. To the contrary, 
     virtually all the concerns you had raised in the past about 
     the treatment of pass-through businesses in tax reform were 
     to voice skepticism about the generosity of various proposals 
     under consideration.
       The first claim--that a new pass-through proposal was 
     created out of whole cloth and inserted into the conference 
     report--is an irresponsible and partisan assertion that is 
     belied by the facts. For more than a year, tax-writers in the 
     House and Senate have worked to craft legislation that not 
     only provided relief for ``C'' corporations, but also 
     delivered equitable treatment for pass-through businesses. 
     Though the two chambers came at this issue from different 
     angles, our goal was the same: To provide tax relief to pass-
     through businesses at a level similar to that provided to 
     regular ``C'' corporations. This policy goal was confirmed in 
     the Unified Framework for Fixing Our Broken Tax Code, which 
     provided in part:
       ``TAX RATE STRUCTURE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES The framework 
     limits the maximum tax rate applied to the business income of 
     small and family owned businesses conducted as sole 
     proprietorships, partnerships and S corporations to 25%. The 
     framework contemplates that the committees will adopt 
     measures to prevent the re-characterization of personal 
     income into business income to prevent wealthy individuals 
     from avoiding the top personal tax rate.''
       The House Ways Means Committee and the Senate Finance 
     Committee achieved this mutual goal by different means. 
     Section 1004 of the House bill provided a special tax rate 
     for pass-through income and included a ``prove-out'' option 
     for capital-intensive businesses. Chairman Brady unveiled 
     this approach on November 2nd, more than six weeks ago.
       The Senate took a different approach, achieving the 
     intended rate relief through a deduction patterned after 
     current law Section 199. We also included measures to ensure 
     that compensation could not be easily gamed into business 
     income in order to qualify for the deduction. Similar to 
     Section 199, the deduction in the Senate bill excluded 
     compensation and guarantee payments to owners and was limited 
     to 50 percent of compensation paid to employees, with an 
     exception for small pass-through businesses, including 
     service providers. The Senate bill did not include a prove-
     out option for capital-intensive businesses like the one 
     contained in the House bill.
       The Joint Committee on Taxation (``JCT''), the non-partisan 
     congressional scorekeeper for tax legislation, released a 
     side-by-side summary of the two bills for conferees. That 
     summary, dated December 7, 2017 and available on JCT's 
     website (JCX 64-17), described the House position in part:
       ``In the case of a capital-intensive business, a taxpayer 
     may ``prove out'' a capital percentage by electing the 
     application of an increased percentage for the taxable year 
     it is made and each of the next four taxable years. The 
     applicable percentage is determined by dividing (1) the 
     specified return on capital for the activity for the taxable 
     year, by (2) the taxpayer's net business income derived from 
     that activity for that taxable year.''
       It takes a great deal of imagination--and likely no small 
     amount of partisanship--to argue that a provision that has 
     been public for over a month, debated on the floor of the 
     House of Representatives, included in a House-passed bill, 
     and identified by JCT as an issue requiring a compromise 
     between conferees is somehow a covert and last-minute 
     addition to the conference report.
       I have sat on a number conference committees, too numerous 
     to remember. In each case, conferees have come into the 
     conference expecting to achieve their chamber's position or 
     negotiate a reasonable compromise. This conference committee 
     was no exception. The House entered the conference with an 
     interest in preserving, in some form, the prove-out 
     alternative as an option for capital-intensive taxpayers. 
     Through several rounds of negotiations, the House secured a 
     version of their proposal that was consistent with the 
     overall structure of the compromise.
       The prove-out alternative included in the conference report 
     was derived from the House provision and is the product of a 
     negotiation between the House and Senate tax-writing 
     committees. It is that simple.
       If you have any further questions, please feel free to 
     contact me.
           Very Truly Yours,
                                                   Orrin G. Hatch,
                               Chairman, Senate Finance Committee.

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, 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. KING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Deadlines

  Mr. KING. Madam President, I rise today to talk not about legislation 
or about the tax bill--well, I may talk about the tax bill a little--
but I do wish to talk about deadlines and how we all do our work, 
whether it is in the Senate, in our businesses, or in our personal 
lives. I wish to talk about deadlines missed and deadlines that don't 
exist.
  One of the realities of this place that I think is very unfortunate 
is that we rarely make our deadlines. These are self-imposed deadlines. 
These are deadlines that we create. We pass a law that says something 
has to happen by September 30. We set the deadline, and then we don't 
make it.
  Most notoriously, it happens with budgets. I don't know the last time 
we had a budget on time. I think it is about 17 years ago. I suspect 
there are probably less than a dozen Senators in this Chamber who were 
here when we last passed a budget on time. There is no excuse for that. 
The problem is that when we put it off, we don't know anything more 
than we did at the time of the deadline. We could have done it, and 
yet, because we are able to, we put it off. That is human nature, 
unfortunately. Who among us would not have put off the deadline for a 
book report if we could have said to the teacher: Gee,

[[Page 20092]]

I don't think I can make that Monday morning deadline. I will just do 
my book report on Tuesday.
  Life doesn't work that way. In the real world, there are deadlines. 
There are consequences if you don't get your work done on time. Things 
happen, and if you don't get your work done on time, usually, those 
things that happen are bad. I don't know where else, other than in this 
body, where deadlines, which have enormous implications and enormous 
importance, are simply ignored.
  I just sat down in the last day or so and put together real deadlines 
that we have in the law right now. What are they? Well, the Children's 
Health Insurance Program's deadline is September 30, 2017. That is 
gone. That has passed. I can give you 23,000 reasons that we should 
have met that deadline. That is the number of young people in Maine who 
are covered by the Children's Health Insurance Program, and there are 9 
million nationwide. But we missed the deadline. Why? I can't find any 
reason. We don't know anything now that we didn't know in the middle of 
September or in August when we could have passed this program, but we 
just blew right by it. Maybe it is because none of our kids are in this 
program. I venture to say that if the children of the Members of the 
Senate were in the CHIP program, we would have met that deadline, but 
we didn't.
  What is another one? Community health centers had another deadline of 
September 30, which was missed. I will give you 200,000 reasons that we 
should have met that deadline. That is the number of people in my State 
of Maine who are served by federally qualified health centers. I was at 
one just on Friday. They serve people who otherwise wouldn't get care. 
They fill an enormous gap, particularly in a rural State, to provide 
healthcare to people who need it, but we didn't make the deadline. 
There was no particular reason not to make this deadline. We just blew 
right by it. It was not all that important. I venture to say that if 
our families were covered under this program, we would have gotten it 
done. No Senators' families are covered by federally qualified health 
centers. If they had been, we would have gotten it done.
  Of course, the granddaddy of all of deadlines mentioned is the 
budget: October 1, 2017. We missed it--no deadline. We just went right 
by it. Nothing happened. Well, what we did was to pass a continuing 
resolution. A continuing resolution really should be called a ``cop-out 
resolution.'' It is basically saying that we are not going to make the 
hard decisions in a budget. We are just going to push them forward for 
a month or two. But the problem is that the month or two comes. In 
fact, it is coming this Friday, and now we are talking about another 
continuing resolution to go into January or February. No business would 
do this. Families can't even do this.
  Some time ago, I was the Governor of Maine. I remember vividly. I can 
practically tell you where I was standing in my office. We have a 
deadline in Maine of July 1 for our budget. We always make it. Members 
of the legislature of one of the parties came to me. They were having a 
hard time getting a budget. It was very contentious, as it is every 
year. He said: Governor, let's just do a continuing resolution like 
they do in Washington, and we can solve this problem in the next 2 
weeks. I said: Not on your life, because if we do, once we open the 
Pandora's box of continuing resolutions in Maine or in Iowa or in 
Mississippi or Florida, then we are stuck. We will never get a budget 
on time again because it is too easy to put off the hard decisions. 
What do we know now about the budget that we didn't know in August? 
What will we know in January that we don't know now?
  By the way, a continuing resolution for the entire budget is bad for 
the government and disastrous for national security. I serve on the 
Armed Services Committee. We have hearings both from our civilian 
leadership and our military leadership, and they have told us 
repeatedly: Please get us a budget. The continuing resolution doesn't 
allow us to plan. It locks us into last year's priorities. It doesn't 
allow us to look forward and make commitments that will save the 
taxpayers money if we have the authority. It is a disaster for national 
security, but a deadline was missed on September 30. It looks like we 
are going to miss another deadline on December 22, and we will be here 
talking about funding the government, doing the budget, sometime in 
January or maybe in February. There is no reason for it. There is no 
reason for it except that we are simply avoiding making difficult 
decisions.
  The next one is DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The 
real deadline started on October 6. That is when people started to lose 
the ability to re-up their qualifications for DACA. Over 100 people a 
day are losing their DACA status. In the last week it has been, I 
think, something like 1,700--in the last week or 10 days. These are 
people who are going to go into the holidays unsure about whether they 
are going to be able to continue to live in this country. These are 
young people, as we all know. This is the only country they know. They 
were brought here as little kids. They weren't illegal immigrants. They 
were brought here as children, and they are contributing to our 
society, and they are working and paying taxes. But we missed the 
deadline starting in October.
  Now, even the President said we should fix this program, and he gave 
us 6 months. He said: I am going to disallow the program, but not until 
March 5, 2018. I don't know whether it is legal to bet in the District 
of Columbia, but I would be willing to bet that we are still struggling 
with this question on March 4, 2018. I deeply hope not because lives 
are being toyed with here unnecessarily. We could make the decisions 
now. We could decide to reach a compromise agreement on this program, 
which Members of both sides of the aisle think needs to be done, 
including the President. Let's get it done. But it is one more missed 
deadline.
  Next is the National Flood Insurance Program, with a deadline of 
December 22, which is 4 days from now. I don't think we are going to 
make it. If ever there was a time of importance for the National Flood 
Insurance Program, it is now. We have had enormous flooding issues with 
the hurricanes in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. 
Yet the flood insurance program expires on December 22. Why don't we 
get it done? Because it is not our houses. It is not our houses that 
are at risk to get the flood insurance. I suspect if we had the houses 
that were part of this problem, it would be solved.
  Medicare extenders expire on December 31 of this year. Are we going 
to get those done? I deeply hope so, but I am not so sure.
  FISA section 702, one of the most important national intelligence 
provisions that we have, also expires at the end of the year. Are we 
going to get that done? I deeply hope so, but I am not optimistic.
  Next, we have the wildfires and FEMA disaster aid for Harvey, Irma, 
Maria, and the wildfires. These are huge disasters. We have partially 
funded them, but certainly not to the point that is going to be 
required. Those deadlines were all this fall.
  At the bottom of my chart of priorities is tax reform. Boy, are we 
going to make that deadline. The only problem is that it doesn't exist. 
There is no deadline for that. There was no deadline. It is not 
December 22. It is not Christmas. It is not New Year's. It is a self-
imposed deadline that is not in law anywhere.
  I agree that we need to do tax reform, but we have been doing it on 
an unprecedented scale and speed that is unnecessary. We have missed 
and ignored all these real deadlines in exchange for focusing all of 
our attention on a fake deadline. Sure, it would be nice to get it 
done, and we could have gotten it done. It could have been done on a 
bipartisan basis. We could have started last summer, and we would have 
had a bill just like the bill that emerged from the HELP Committee with 
regard to healthcare, on a bipartisan basis. But instead it was a 
closed process, done with unprecedented speed, with virtually no 
hearings--well,

[[Page 20093]]

no hearings, no real hearings on the bill, no serious outside experts, 
no analysis of what is in it. We have been given a 500-page bill that 
we are going to vote on in probably a day or so. Yet we are racing to 
meet a deadline that didn't exist.
  It is boring to talk about process, but that is what I am really 
talking about today. I just don't understand an institution that 
doesn't make its real deadlines and yet races and throws everything 
aside to try to make a deadline that just came out of the air. It is 
not in any law, any rule, any expectation--let's do it by Christmas or 
by the end of the year. It is no way to run a business, and it is 
certainly no way to run the government on behalf of the American 
people.
  I have never been in an institution or in a group of people who are 
as capable as the people who are here, and I find it genuinely puzzling 
as to why we perform so poorly and why the public opinion of us is so 
low. These are good people on both sides of the aisle. Yet something 
about the way this institution works keeps us from meeting the rules 
and expectations that the rest of society takes for granted, such as 
making deadlines, doing your job, doing what you are paid to do.
  One of the most fundamental responsibilities is to pass a budget. We 
have members of our Appropriations Committee who have been working for 
a year to put the budget together. It is done, and we could do this, 
but instead we are putting it off and putting it off and putting it 
off. I wouldn't be surprised if, come January or February--assuming we 
don't make it by this Friday--there are going to be people who say: 
Let's just do a continuing resolution for the rest of the year--a cop-
out resolution, a nonresolution, a nondecision on behalf of the people 
of this country.
  I think we can do better. I think we can begin to regain the trust of 
the American people by going back and doing things the way we are 
supposed to according to the old norms, with hearings and 
considerations and making deadlines and meeting our obligations to our 
citizens and to our country.
  I deeply hope that as the year turns, we also make a turn and that we 
make a turn to do this place better, to do our work that the American 
people hired us to do, to do it on a timely basis, and to meet our 
responsibilities. I believe we can do it. I believe we can do it 
better, and I deeply hope that we do so.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                         Tax Cuts and Jobs Bill

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to express my support for the 
conference agreement on the Tax Cuts and Job Act, the first major 
overhaul of our Tax Code since 1986. This legislation will provide tax 
relief to working families, encourage the creation of jobs right here 
in America, and spur economic growth that will benefit all Americans.
  Let me start by discussing the effects of this bill on individuals 
and families. Throughout this debate, I have emphasized that reforms to 
our outdated Tax Code must help working families. I, therefore, 
authored three key amendments that were retained in the final package.
  My amendments allow families to deduct up to $10,000 in State and 
local taxes, increase the deduction for medical expenses, and protect 
tax-free contributions for retirement savings.
  The original Senate bill would have eliminated the deduction known as 
SALT that allows taxpayers to avoid paying a Federal tax on State and 
local taxes that they have already paid. This provision has been in the 
Tax Code since 1913, when the income tax was first established. It is 
intended to prevent double taxation. My amendment, which was adopted by 
the Senate, restored the deduction for property taxes up to $10,000. I 
am pleased that the final bill goes a step further by allowing the 
deduction of property and income or sales taxes up to this level, which 
will assist even more Americans.
  My work to restore this deduction is especially important to families 
living in high-tax States like Maine, which has one of our Nation's 
highest tax burdens; yet Maine's per capita income ranks only 31st, 
which is nearly $5,200 below the U.S. average. Maintaining this 
deduction therefore provides important tax relief for those Mainers who 
itemize.
  My second amendment included in the conference agreement is a very 
important one. It is aimed at helping Americans struggling with high, 
unreimbursed healthcare costs, including seniors paying for long-term 
care for a loved one and those with expensive chronic healthcare 
conditions. My amendment lowers the threshold for claiming this 
deduction for these unreimbursed expenses from 10 percent to 7.5 
percent of income for 2017 and 2018.
  The House bill would have eliminated this longstanding deduction used 
by approximately 8.8 million Americans annually, nearly half of whom 
make less than $50,000 per year. Retaining this important deduction and 
lowering the threshold will provide relief for those experiencing 
particularly high healthcare costs. That is why AARP and 44 other 
consumer groups strongly endorsed my amendments, stating: ``It provides 
important tax relief which helps offset the costs of acute and chronic 
medical conditions for older Americans, children, pregnant women, 
disabled individuals and other adults, as well as the costs associated 
with long-term care and assisted living.''
  At a time when we need to be encouraging Americans to save more for 
their retirement, I am encouraged that the final agreement preserves 
the pretax contribution limits for retirement savings plans. We are in 
the midst of a silent but looming retirement security crisis in this 
country. According to the nonpartisan Center for Retirement Research, 
there is a $7.7 trillion gap between the savings that American 
households need to maintain their standard of living in retirement and 
what they actually have saved.
  We should be doing everything we can to encourage more saving, not 
less. For this reason, I am pleased that the final bill will include my 
third amendment, which struck the original Senate language eliminating 
the ability of public employees, such as firefighters, schoolteachers, 
and police officers, as well as clergy and those employed by charities 
and nonprofit organizations, to make what are called catch-up 
contributions to their retirement accounts. These employees are 
generally paid less than their counterparts employed by for-profit 
companies and thus are less able to save for their retirement. My 
provision would allow them to continue making these important extra 
investments toward a secure retirement.
  The conference agreement benefits lower and middle-income taxpayers 
significantly, while simplifying the tasks that no one relishes of 
completing their tax returns.
  Significantly, this bill nearly doubles the standard deduction to 
$12,000 for single filers and $24,000 for those filing jointly. The 
child tax credit will be doubled from $1,000 to $2,000. Thanks to 
Senator Rubio's efforts, which I strongly supported, up to $1,400 of 
that tax credit will be refundable in order to benefit low-income 
families.
  Let's be more concrete. What do these reforms mean to families across 
our country? The 72 percent of Mainers who already use the standard 
deduction will have their taxes reduced. A family with $24,000 in 
income will pay no Federal income tax. A single mom earning $35,000 a 
year with one child will see her taxes drop by nearly 4,000 percent. 
Instead of paying money back to Washington, she will be getting back 
nearly $1,100 to help her make ends meet. A couple with no children 
earning $60,000 will see their taxes fall by more than $900. A couple 
with two children earning $60,000 will get a tax cut of about $1,700. 
That is a reduction of more than 100 percent. The bottom line is that 
most Maine households will see their taxes go down.
  I was very concerned about a number of important deductions for 
individuals that would have been eliminated under the House bill.
  Having worked at Husson University in Bangor before my election to 
the Senate, I am well aware of how critical

[[Page 20094]]

education deductions and credits are to our students and their 
families; therefore, I had several fruitful discussions with a key 
conferee, Senator Rob Portman, about preserving those deductions that 
help students afford higher education. I appreciate his strong advocacy 
for these provisions that I care so much about as a result of my direct 
experience working with college students. In fact, one of the very 
first bills that I introduced in the Senate as a new Senator in 1997 
was to provide a deduction for interest paid on student loans. The 
conference agreement maintains that deductibility of interest on 
student loans, as well as the tax exemption for employer-provided 
tuition assistance and for graduate student tuition waivers. All of 
those important deductions are maintained in this bill and will help 
Americans improve their earnings because of the increased education 
they will have.
  The bill also maintains a $250 deduction--a provision I authored some 
15 years ago--that allows teachers to deduct the costs of classroom 
supplies they purchase with their own money. Having visited more than 
200 schools in the State of Maine, I know firsthand how dedicated 
teachers dig deep into their own pockets to buy supplies to enhance the 
education of their students.
  In addition, this bill would modernize the ABLE accounts, which are 
tax-preferred savings accounts essential for providing long-term 
support for individuals with disabilities and their families.
  The bill also continues the tax credit to encourage adoptions.
  The final agreement also preserves a number of deductions and credits 
that are so important to our communities. I worked hard to preserve the 
historic tax credit so businesses rehabilitating older buildings in 
communities like Lewiston, ME, will continue to do so.
  I am also pleased that private activity bonds, which are vital to 
many hospitals and institutions of higher education, are continued, as 
are the affordable housing and new markets tax credits. We have found 
proven ways to encourage public-private partnerships, and we ought to 
continue to incentivize these important partnerships.
  How this legislation treats employers has also been the subject of 
much debate, but the reality is the United States cannot continue to 
have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world at 35 
percent. We are losing jobs as businesses make the calculation to 
invest overseas.
  I have talked to the executives of General Dynamics, which owns Bath 
Iron Works in Maine and employs more than 5,000 Mainers; to United 
Technology, which employs more than 1,900 people in North Berwick at 
its Pratt & Whitney plant; to General Electric, which has a major plant 
in Bangor; to Proctor & Gamble, which employs 400 workers in Auburn; 
and to Idexx, which is such an important high-tech employer in 
Westbrook, about the positive difference this legislation will make in 
their ability to create jobs in America.
  New Balance, which has about 900 workers in Maine manufacturing 
footwear, describes the tax reforms as follows: ``New Balance will be 
more competitive and manufacture more footwear in Maine that we can 
export across the globe.''
  This significant Maine employer went on to say: ``Companies like New 
Balance, which already has a strong domestic manufacturing presence, 
will be able to increase investments in their facilities and be more 
globally competitive while remaining a U.S. company hiring U.S. 
workers.''
  These words are echoed by the manager of the Pratt & Whitney plant 
who wrote to me: ``The reforms . . . will allow companies like ours to 
bring home earnings from abroad to invest in research and development, 
advanced manufacturing, energy efficiency, and workforce initiatives. . 
. . Pratt & Whitney plans to hire thousands of people over the next 
several years across our U.S. operations, and this tax reform will 
further support our efforts.''
  Isn't that what we seek? Isn't that what tax reform should bring 
about--more jobs, right here in America?
  The bill also includes changes important for our small businesses 
which employ nearly half of all workers and generate two out of three 
net new jobs in our country. They are the true engine of our economy, 
especially in the great State of Maine. The bill would provide tax 
relief that enables them to create more jobs, increase paychecks, and 
grow our economy.
  As the president of the Retail Association of Maine recently 
commented about this tax reform bill, ``For Maine and its nearly 9,000 
retail establishments and the more than 80,000 retail jobs, this is 
welcome relief for small businesses.''
  According to the National Federation of Independent Business, Maine 
ranks fifth in the Nation for the share of workers employed by 
passthrough businesses, as most small employers are structured. The 
NFIB, our Nation's small business advocacy group, has strongly endorsed 
this final bill.
  Small businesses make an outsized contribution to our Nation's 
economy; yet they face a tax burden that can reach nearly 40 percent at 
the Federal level and can be significantly higher than the corporate 
tax rates paid by larger firms. Small businesses are forced to devote 
more resources to tax payments and fewer resources to creating good 
jobs and investing in their communities. This bill provides important 
tax relief to small businesses that are the backbone of our economy.
  Let's listen to the words of some of the small businesses from Maine 
that have written or talked to me. The owner of Windham Millwork, an 
architectural woodworking company, described the relief for small 
businesses and how it will help manufacturing workers and families this 
way: ``Most importantly, it means Windham Millwork will have more money 
to spend on what matters--our workers and community. With the money 
we'll save, we can create new jobs or offer better pay to our workforce 
. . . which helps everyone in our community and contributes to a 
growing Maine economy.''
  The innkeeper of the Nonantum Resort in Kennebunkport noted: ``This 
tax reform bill helps level the playing field for small businesses not 
only in the hotel industry, but across the economy. With a lower tax 
burden, small businesses in all industries can continue to grow, 
creating more jobs.''
  Moreover, a family-owned business in southern Maine described for me 
how the bill would benefit Maine companies and the people who work for 
them: ``When [companies] become more profitable, they reinvest faster, 
grow faster, and increase profit-sharing. Employees benefit when 
companies grow. There are more jobs, more opportunities, more security, 
more mobility, more innovation.''
  Tax reform should spur this kind of economic growth. The weak growth 
and stagnant wages we have seen in recent years cannot be accepted as 
the new normal for our country. It is clear where the current path 
would lead if we do not act. CBO projects the current slow growth of 
just 1.9 percent per year will continue throughout the next decade--far 
below the historic average of 3 percent. This would result in our 
public debt exceeding 90 percent of GDP by 2027, just as our 
obligations to the baby boom generation begin to crest.
  Surely, we can do better. Tax relief and reform will lift our 
economy, leading to higher wages for workers and more revenue for 
government. Extrapolating from a CBO estimate, an increase of just 
four-tenths of 1 percent in economic growth could produce revenues that 
are in excess of $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
  If we remain on our present trajectory, however, growth will remain 
stagnant. Continued slow growth will crowd out many funding priorities, 
harm our national security, place significant strain on Federal 
programs, and impose a burden on our children and our grandchildren. We 
must act now to reignite the engine of growth, to provide for the next 
generation the same promise of a brighter future we received from those 
who came before us.
  Finally, let me discuss the critical issue of healthcare. It has been 
deeply disturbing to see seniors frightened

[[Page 20095]]

about the possibility that this tax bill could trigger an automatic 4-
percent cut in the vital Medicare Program. Although I knew that the law 
that could cause this reduction has been waived 16 times, I felt it was 
essential that our leaders publicly commit that Medicare reductions 
would not be triggered by this legislation. I don't know of any Senator 
on either side of the aisle who is seeking to have an automatic 4-
percent cut in Medicare go into effect.
  I ask unanimous consent that my exchange of correspondence with the 
Senate majority leader be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
statement.
  This pledge is ironclad and, I hope, reassuring to our seniors.
  I am also concerned about the inclusion of the repeal of the 
individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act as part of this tax bill. 
I don't think the two issues should have been combined, but let me be 
very clear: I have never supported the individual mandate. There is a 
big difference between fining people who choose to go without health 
insurance versus the bills considered last summer and fall that would 
have taken away insurance coverage from people who have it and want it. 
Those bills also would have made sweeping cuts in the Medicaid Program.
  The financial penalty under the individual mandate for failing to 
comply with it falls disproportionately on lower-income Americans. 
Eighty percent of those who pay the fine make under $50,000 a year. For 
many of these individuals, the cost of insurance under the ACA is 
simply unaffordable. Individuals making 250 percent of the Federal 
poverty level--that is just over $30,000--are not eligible for the 
subsidies to reduce deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs that are 
known as the cost-sharing reductions. So, essentially, the insurance 
they are being fined for, if they don't buy, is virtually useless to 
them because the deductibles and the copays are so high, and if they 
make over 250 percent of the poverty level--over $30,000 a year--they 
cannot afford it.
  I want to make an important point that has been overlooked in this 
debate. Any Senator, Democratic or Republican, could have offered an 
amendment on the Senate floor to strike the repeal of the individual 
mandate. None--not one--chose to do so. That is telling, indeed, and 
reflects both how unpopular the mandate is and how burdensome its 
impact is.
  Nevertheless, repealing the individual mandate without other 
healthcare reforms will almost certainly lead to further increases in 
the costs of health insurance premiums that are already too expensive 
under the ACA.
  For these reasons, I have made it a priority to secure passage of two 
bipartisan bills that will help make health insurance more affordable. 
Shouldn't that be a goal that all of us can embrace? Both of these 
bills have the support of the President, the Vice President, and the 
Senate Republican leaders. In fact, Majority Leader McConnell and I 
engaged in a colloquy affirming that commitment.
  The first bill, the Bipartisan Healthcare Stabilization Act, 
sponsored by Senators Alexander and Murray, will provide vital funding 
to help low-income families pay their out-of-pocket costs, including 
deductibles and copays associated with certain ACA health insurance. I 
am proud to be one of the 22 cosponsors of the bipartisan Alexander-
Murray bill.
  The second is a bipartisan bill that I introduced with my friend and 
colleague Senator Bill Nelson. It would protect people with preexisting 
conditions while lowering the cost of health insurance through the use 
of high-risk pools. This plan will provide $5 billion annually for 2 
years in seed money for States to establish invisible high-risk pools 
or traditional reinsurance programs.
  We don't have to guess about the impact. I am going to quote some 
actuarial studies shortly. The fact is that we know from experience in 
States like Maine and Alaska that high-risk pools can help to lower 
premiums substantially, by an average of 20 percent.
  Analyses show that enactment of these two bills together will reduce 
the cost of health insurance, thus making it more affordable. According 
to analysis by experts at Oliver Wyman, the passage of these bills will 
more than offset the premium increases caused by the repeal of the 
individual mandate. In fact, Oliver Wyman suggests in its estimate that 
the $5 billion in funding would be sufficient to allow States to 
leverage more than $15 billion in reinsurance coverage, and it would 
result in premiums that were more than 20 percent lower than if the 
individual mandate were repealed and the package of provisions were not 
implemented.
  Furthermore, analysis by experts at Avalere project that ``in 
combination, CSR funding and $5B in annual reinsurance could lower 2019 
premiums by 18% and increase enrollment by 1.3M people.''
  The National Association of Insurance Commissioners wrote that these 
two bills would significantly reduce health insurance premiums and help 
promote more stability in insurance markets. The NAIC said: ``Providing 
reliable federal funding to reimburse health insurance carriers for the 
Cost-Sharing Reduction (CSR) program assistance they give to low-income 
consumers and grants for states to establish invisible high risk pools 
or reinsurance programs would reduce premium increases as much as 20 
percent and could encourage some carriers to stay in the market.''
  In evaluating this bill, the question we should ask is not, Does this 
tax cut make Washington better off? The right question to ask is, Does 
this tax cut make the American people better off? The answer to that 
question is yes.
  The bill puts money back into the pockets of American taxpayers with 
tax cuts beginning January 1. As soon as the IRS updates withholding 
tables this winter, taxpayers will see the benefit of this bill in 
their paychecks. Over time, Americans will also see more benefit from 
this legislation in the form of higher wages. Businesses, small and 
large, will make the investments that will create more jobs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I will cast my vote in support of the 
conference agreement on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. While it is by no 
means perfect, on balance, this reform bill will provide much needed 
tax relief. It will benefit lower and middle-income families, while 
spurring the creation of good jobs and greater economic growth.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, November 28, 2017.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader McConnell: I write to express my deep 
     concerns with the Congressional Budget Office's determination 
     that an automatic four percent cut to Medicare, estimated to 
     be roughly $25 billion for fiscal year 2018, could be 
     triggered by the passage of tax reform legislation as a 
     result of the Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (PAYGO) even though 
     there is no intention for such a reduction to occur.
       Since I do not believe it is anyone's intention to allow 
     automatic cuts to Medicare to occur, I urge swift action to 
     waive the PAYGO requirements. Medicare provides essential 
     benefits to our nation's seniors, and we must remove 
     immediately the threat that an automatic reduction in the 
     program's funding could occur.
       Since PAYGO was enacted, sixteen laws that would have 
     otherwise triggered PAYGO's automatic spending cuts have 
     included provisions to exclude all or part of the law's 
     budgetary impact, including the American Taxpayer Relief Act 
     of 2012 that was enacted under the previous Administration.
       I look forward to working with you to ensure that no 
     Medicare cuts are triggered under PAYGO, a goal I believe is 
     supported by members on both sides of the aisle. Thank you 
     for your attention to this critical issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Susan M. Collins,
     United States Senator.
                                  ____



                                 U.S. Senate, Majority Leader,

                                 Washington, DC, December 1, 2017.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: Thank you for your letter expressing 
     concern about the across-the-board spending cuts. You will be 
     pleased to know that Speaker Paul Ryan and I issued the 
     following joint statement earlier today:

[[Page 20096]]

       ``Critics of tax reform are claiming the legislation would 
     lead to massive, across-the-board spending cuts in vital 
     programs--including a 4-percent reduction in Medicare--due to 
     the Pay-Go law enacted in 2010. This will not happen. 
     Congress has readily available methods to waive this law, 
     which has never been enforced since its enactment. There is 
     no reason to believe that Congress would not act again to 
     prevent a sequester, and we will work to ensure these 
     spending cuts are prevented.''
       Again, thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Mitch McConnell,
                                                  Majority Leader.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, does the Senator from Maine need some 
more time?
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I thank Senator Nelson. I say, through 
the Chair, that is very gracious of the Senator. I have completed my 
statement. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, while the Senator from Maine is still 
here, let me just say what a great Senator she is and what a pleasure 
it is to do business in a bipartisan way, as the two of us have now 
done for several years here in the Senate, including the legislation 
the Senator from Maine just talked about.
  I just want to say to the Senator from Maine that it is my hope, 
regarding the statements that have been made to the Senator, that these 
two pieces of legislation she referenced will be passed. I do believe 
the majority leader, Senator McConnell, will honor that with regard to 
the Senate. It is this Senator's concern that at the other end of the 
hall, in the House of Representatives, they may not honor that. I 
certainly hope the Senator feels like she has the statements of 
commitment by the leadership in the House of Representatives that they 
will do as Senator McConnell has indicated.
  Madam President, I wish to talk about the tax bill. Needless to say, 
you are going to hear a different version from me than my good friend 
and the very distinguished Senator from Maine, because last Friday 
night we got the conference agreement on the tax bill. You can wonder 
why it was held until late Friday night, when nobody was paying 
attention to the details of the bill.
  What is becoming increasingly clear is that this tax bill is not for 
ordinary folks. It is going to give a few nuggets to the middle class, 
but that is to mask the true intent. The real purpose of the bill is to 
give huge tax cuts to multinational corporations and to make it easier 
for them to shift jobs overseas. That is the bottom line.
  Right now, under current law, corporations that send jobs overseas 
have to pay taxes on the money they bring back into the United States, 
but now, what this new GOP tax bill says is that corporations that send 
jobs overseas can bring that money back to United States tax-free. Once 
this bill passes, companies will come under increasing pressure to take 
advantage of the tax savings in the bill by sending their jobs overseas 
to low-wage countries--particularly those jobs that can't already be 
automated.
  This is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. Instead of 
passing this version of the tax bill that will inevitably send American 
jobs overseas, we should be working on a bill that cuts taxes 
permanently for hard-working middle-class families.
  Supporters of the bill will argue that a lower corporate rate will 
encourage companies to keep jobs here. They will argue that, rather 
than going to a country with a higher corporate rate, America's 
corporate rate will be lower. But that is ignoring the attraction that 
companies have to send jobs overseas, because of cheaper wages and 
lower environmental standards.
  Take China. China has a corporate rate of 25 percent, except that 
they make exceptions for certain companies at 15 percent. So the 21 
percent in this tax bill for corporations on income earned in the 
United States may still be higher than in China, and the pressure on 
corporations is to take it to a country that has lower environmental 
standards and lower wages.
  I think our friends on the other side of the aisle know this is a 
head fake. We are not fooled by this. We know what you are trying to do 
with this bill. The more people learn about it, the worse it looks. 
That is why they waited until Friday night to let the spotlight shine 
on it--so that over the weekend people weren't paying a lot of 
attention.
  There is a reason why my friends on the other side of the aisle are 
in such a rush to get this passed. It is because they want to get it 
enacted before all of the new loopholes and sweetheart deals for the 
special interests and the bottom line of encouraging jobs to go 
overseas are discovered. And, starting right now, it is going to be 
discovered.
  It would be nice if our colleagues showed as much urgency for some of 
the other things we should be doing in the Senate, such as providing 
millions of kids with health insurance through the CHIP program or 
helping folks recover from the massive hurricanes this year, including 
the millions of people in Puerto Rico who are still without reliable 
electricity or drinking water. What about the hundreds of thousands of 
Dreamers in the United States who are here in a deportable status? That 
is what we ought to be worrying about.
  It has been over 3 months, going on 4 months, since Hurricanes Irma 
and Maria devastated the Puerto Rican island. It has been months since 
Harvey and Irma devastated farmers in Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico. 
While the Congress has passed two disaster supplemental funding 
packages, neither of them has included any relief for Florida's 
agricultural community. They are hanging on by a thread. They can 
hardly make payroll. They are having to lay off people. They 
desperately need our help, which I hope we are going to address in this 
next disaster aid funding package.
  Instead of spending all of our energy on cutting corporate taxes and 
making it easier to send American jobs overseas, we should be focused 
on reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, so that 
9 million children across the country, including nearly 400,000 in 
Florida, can continue to have access to the health coverage they 
desperately need. Or we should be negotiating permanent protections for 
the Dreamers before they are kicked out of the only country they have 
ever known. Unfortunately, the only thing this Republican-led Senate 
seems to care about is helping out large multinational corporations.
  The truth is, these multinational corporations are doing just fine. 
We shouldn't be moving Heaven and Earth--adding $1.5 trillion to the 
national debt or upending our Nation's healthcare system--just to make 
it easier for them to send American jobs overseas. That is not right. 
That is not fair. The American people deserve better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moran). The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, I want to thank my friend Senator 
Nelson for his comments from the floor in regard to the tax bill that 
we will be voting on later this week. The experience I had this morning 
underscores the issues that Senator Nelson has brought to the floor. I 
had a meeting with the Greater Baltimore Committee. We had business 
leaders, labor leaders; we had advocates from different segments of our 
community; and we had graduate students there. They all expressed 
concern about our voting this week on a tax bill that we first saw on 
Friday evening--the latest version.
  It is still fundamentally flawed, as Senator Nelson has pointed out. 
I say that it is fundamentally flawed because it gives significant, big 
tax cuts to corporations and high-income taxpayers and leaves middle-
income taxpayers footing the bill.
  The conference report makes it worse because they lower the highest 
tax rate from 39.6 percent to 37 percent--another advantage for high-
income taxpayers. In addition, the estate tax is doubled, which affects 
0.2 percent of the wealthiest people in this country. Corporations not 
only get the lower tax rates cut from 35 percent to 21 percent, but 
they also get relief from the

[[Page 20097]]

alternative minimum tax. To make matters even worse, the tax relief for 
middle-income families is temporary, whereas the tax relief for 
businesses is made permanent.
  It is definitely a tax bill that is going to hurt middle-income 
taxpayers. In my own State, independent analysis shows that 800,000 
Marylanders will end up paying more in taxes. Guess who is going to 
foot the bill, who is going to pay for the big deficit.
  If you look at the corporate tax cut alone, that is somewhere close 
to the $1.15 trillion we have been talking about, which is baked into 
the bill to increase the national debt by $1.5 trillion. I think that 
is unconscionable; I think it is unconscionable to say that we can 
afford tax cuts when we already have these large deficits that are 
going to make us borrow more money and make our economy more dependent.
  The truth is, even the Republicans are telling us, even with dynamic 
scoring, we are going to have a $1 trillion tax gap in the deficit. In 
reality, the $1.5 trillion is conservative. When you look at the 
individual tax relief, it is temporary; it expires. Some expire in 2 
years.
  Most of my Republican friends have said: Just extend it. If you 
extend it, there will be even a deeper hole in the deficit--closer to 
$2 trillion. Who is going to pay for that? Middle-income families are 
going to pay for it. They are not just being left out as far as tax 
relief is concerned; they are being asked to foot the bill for the tax 
cuts for corporations and high-income taxpayers.
  In addition, it will affect other elements that middle-income 
taxpayers depend upon. This is a direct attack on Medicaid and 
Medicare. We see that. We saw that in the budget instructions, where we 
had to cut Medicare and Medicaid. We see that in the pay-go rules. We 
see that the next chapter of this tax reform bill will be, well, now we 
have these deficits, and we have to pay for it. Who is going to be held 
responsible for paying for it?
  We know that it is going to affect our own budgets. I am now hearing 
that we are going to take it out on our own Federal workforce, deny 
them a pay raise for next year or have fewer Federal workers to carry 
out their mission or make them pay more for benefits. We know that is 
going to come. The argument is going to be that we have these large 
deficits now, and we have to do this.
  How are we going to respond to the issues Senator Nelson talked about 
on disaster relief when we have these large deficits? We know that we 
are going to be asking middle-income families not only to make a 
sacrifice on the tax cut, not only to pay for the deficit created 
directly by this but, also, in the future, to pay with cuts in 
government spending.
  In addition to that, we have 13 million Americans who will lose their 
health coverage under this bill because of the elimination of the 
individual mandate--13 million. That is going to affect 13 million 
families. It is going to affect more than that. Guess what these 
families do. They use emergency rooms rather than going to their family 
doctors. They enter the healthcare system in a more expensive way. They 
don't have the money to pay for the visits, and it becomes part of 
uncompensated care. All of us pay higher premiums, and our healthcare 
system becomes more expensive.
  That has been one of the bright spots of the Affordable Care Act--
reducing the number of uninsured. Now we are going to be moving in the 
opposite direction. The Affordable Care Act has worked. The Republicans 
tried to dismantle it, and they couldn't succeed. The worst part is, 
you are counting the loss of insurance of 13 million as a revenue gain 
for the Treasury and then spending that money. That is unconscionable.
  In Maryland, we have particular problems with this bill. Not only 
will we see a problem for the Federal workforce--a large number who 
live in Maryland--but also the State and local tax deductions. Maryland 
has the largest number of taxpayers who take advantage of State and 
local tax deductions on their Federal tax returns. In other words, you 
don't have to pay a tax on a tax. That makes sense. It has been in our 
Tax Code since its beginning because we recognize federalism, and it is 
morally wrong to pay tax on tax.
  Maryland has the most taxpayers who take advantage of State and local 
tax deductions, close to 50 percent. The average for Maryland--this is 
the average--is $12,900 that they deduct for State and local taxes. 
Under the conference report, that is going to be limited to $10,000. 
That means the average Maryland taxpayer will have to pay taxes on 
$2,900 more, but think about all those who have a lot more in State and 
local taxes who are going to be denied that help.
  I was talking to some of our local government officials over the 
weekend. They are going to be disadvantaged by it. It was an 
interesting analysis. We don't think about what this bill is going to 
do and all the consequences, but if you are in a State that has its own 
itemized deductions, like Maryland--we have itemized deductions on our 
State income tax return, and our standard deduction will be 
significantly lower than the standard deduction under this conference 
report.
  You are going to have Marylanders who are not going to be able to 
take their State deductions because you can't take State deductions 
unless you use the Federal itemized deductions. It is estimated that 
nationwide only 5 percent of the taxpayers will be using itemized 
deductions. Guess what. If you don't use the itemized deduction at the 
Federal level, you can't take the State itemized deductions. This is 
going to have a direct impact on our State and local governments. Yet 
that hasn't been considered.
  Quite frankly, the consequences of this bill haven't been debated. We 
haven't gone through public hearings because of the process that was 
used--the partisan process, called reconciliation. We haven't seen 
daylight. We haven't had a chance to know what the impact will be. What 
impact will it have on property values? We now limit property tax 
deductions, and we have a further limit on interest deductions on 
mortgages. What impact does it have on property values? What impact 
does the reduction of property values have on our economy, have on the 
individual values for people who have loans on their homes? Are we 
going to be creating a problem? We don't know because we haven't had 
any hearings on it.
  On Friday, I was with a group of nonprofits that do very valuable 
work. They are worried about what impact this tax bill will have on 
charitable giving. When only 5 percent of the taxpayers in this country 
use itemized deductions, it means a great number of people who were 
able to take advantage of charitable deductions on their tax returns no 
longer will have that ability. Does that change their charitable 
giving? If it changes their charitable giving pattern, what does it do 
for nonprofits? If our nonprofits can't do that, there is additional 
pressure on governmental services. Have we thought that out? I doubt we 
know the consequences. Yet we are not prepared to have hearings on 
this.
  One of the major issues that has had very little discussion is the 
passthrough. You have heard a lot about it. The reason for this is that 
95 percent of American businesses don't use corporate tax returns. They 
use passthroughs, S corporations, individual proprietorships, 
partnerships, et cetera. This bill provides a lower tax rate for their 
passthrough business income at 20 percent. Here is the problem. In an 
effort to make sure that this isn't a way of getting around paying 
taxes on salaries, there are certain guardrails that have been put into 
this bill based upon a person's income, based upon the type of business 
they are in, based upon the assets of the business, based upon the 
amount of salaries that are paid in the business. And you are trying to 
tell me that can't be manipulated in order to shelter income? We are 
creating a whole new industry in sheltering income under this bill.
  I have heard so many of my colleagues talk about the fact that we 
don't want to outsource jobs. None of

[[Page 20098]]

us want to outsource jobs. Having competitive rates helps us in that 
regard, but moving toward a territorial tax structure rewards companies 
for doing their business offshore. Even if tax rates might be the same, 
they can use labor costs, or some other costs, to outsource jobs.
  Have we thought about that under a territorial tax? No. Do we know 
what impact it will have? No. There are a lot of issues we don't fully 
understand. We do know there are individual provisions put in here--for 
example, drilling in the Arctic. That, to me, should not be part of 
this bill. I worry about that being expanded to the Atlantic coast and 
other areas. I think we all should be concerned about it.
  The bottom line is this. When you do tax reform, you would hope you 
would simplify the Tax Code and make it predictable. That is what I 
hear the most: Let's simplify the Tax Code, and let's make it 
predictable. Neither will be accomplished with this conference report. 
With all these temporary tax provisions, you know that we are going to 
have to deal with extenders. You are not going to be able to plan as to 
whether this Tax Code will stand the test of time. If you think this is 
simplification, try to figure out whether you are eligible for the 
passthrough 20 percent on your business taxes. It is anything but 
simple.
  This bill fails in its principle test of helping middle-income 
families, which it does not do. It is for corporations, big 
corporations, and high-income people. It is fiscally irresponsible to 
add to the debt. It makes our Tax Code more complicated and doesn't 
give us the predictability we need in the Tax Code, and it should be 
rejected.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                           Compton Nomination

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Paul 
Compton, which came out of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 
Committee. I might add that he is President Trump's nominee to serve as 
general counsel of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  Mr. Compton is a longtime affordable housing and financial services 
attorney in the State of Alabama. Mr. Compton, if confirmed, would 
bring a deep familiarity with affordable housing to the Office of 
General Counsel. That part I like. With 11 million families paying over 
half their income for rent and with homelessness on the rise for the 
first time in years, a nominee who appreciates the importance of 
affordable housing could be a positive addition at HUD. Think about 
that. There are 11 million families who pay more than half their income 
on rent.
  In a book written by Matthew Desmond called ``Evicted: Poverty and 
Profit in the American City,'' the author said of the people at that 
income level: When your paycheck comes, the rent eats first. Everything 
depends on being able to stay in your home and not being foreclosed on. 
When 11 million people pay over half their income on rent, homelessness 
is going to be on the rise.
  I appreciate Mr. Compton's commitment to me during our Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee hearing that he would look out for 
the interests of renters and homeowners if confirmed, but I am voting 
against him because I am concerned about the administration's approach 
to fair housing protections and the role that he will likely play in 
helping to carry that out.
  I was troubled to learn that Secretary Carson had said that he plans 
to ``reinterpret'' HUD's affirmatively furthering fair housing--or 
AFFH--rule. Since 1968, the Fair Housing Act has required HUD and its 
grantees to affirmatively further fair housing. Unfortunately, in the 
50 years since our country passed the Fair Housing Act, HUD has not 
provided enough direction to help communities meet this goal.
  A 2010 General Accountability Office report recommended that HUD 
improve its processes for meeting its obligations to affirmatively 
further fair housing. In response, HUD developed a revised rule to 
finally help local governments across the country support and foster 
fair housing policies throughout their communities.
  The rule gives clearer guidance to communities to help them think in 
new ways about how to create housing opportunities for all of their 
residents regardless of race or religion or disability or the size of 
their family. The rule helps them to assess their own fair housing 
needs, and it provides them publicly available data with which to 
inform their decisions while they set their own goals and timelines.
  Since its adoption 2-plus years ago, HUD has been working with 
communities to implement the new guidelines. That is the good news. The 
bad news is that the Secretary has said that he wants to reinterpret, 
but he is not elaborating on what he meant by his plan to reinterpret 
the rule. If the Secretary intends to reinterpret the rule in a way 
that undermines HUD's efforts to help communities fulfill their 
longstanding obligations under this 50-year-old law, Mr. Compton will 
be called upon to carry out this vision.
  I voted against his nomination in committee because of my concern 
that he could help guide administration efforts to reverse progress on 
this fair housing rule. More recent activities by administration 
officials have only heightened the concerns that many of us have about 
their approaches to fair housing.
  In 2013, HUD issued its discriminatory effects rule. This rule 
formalized HUD's longstanding prohibition against practices with 
discriminatory effects under the Fair Housing Act and provided uniform 
guidance for applying standards across the country.
  Because homeowners' insurance is central to the ability to obtain 
housing, HUD and the courts have held for decades that the Fair Housing 
Act applies to discriminatory practices in insurance--a very easy-to-
understand, logical step. Nevertheless, insurance industry 
representatives sued to block HUD's application of the discriminatory 
effects rule--also known as disparate impact--to their industry. HUD 
and the Department of Justice have been fighting this suit ever since. 
As general counsel, Mr. Compton would guide HUD's enforcement and 
litigation strategy.
  In response to a written question, Mr. Compton declined to provide 
his views on the discriminatory effects rule and whether it should 
apply to the insurance industry. He noted that ``it would be 
inappropriate'' for him to comment on the matter given the pending 
litigation.
  The administration, it seems, does not share his reluctance to 
comment on pending litigation. A month and a half ago, the Treasury 
Department issued a report entitled ``A Financial System that Creates 
Economic Opportunities--Asset Management and Insurance.'' In this 
report, Treasury recommends that HUD reconsider the use of the 
disparate impact rule.
  It is not that this administration decides to support the side of big 
insurance companies every time--maybe it doesn't every time--but it 
seems like it almost always does. It did it in this case. Yet Mr. 
Compton thinks that he shouldn't comment when other already confirmed 
Trump appointees have. The Treasury's report sides with arguments that 
have been made by the insurance industry despite the fact that 
litigation is pending, and HUD and the Department of Justice, at least 
until now, have been defending the rule. The next court date for the 
suit is scheduled for later this week.
  If the administration continues its drive to reconsider fair housing 
protections that are opposed to by industry, Mr. Compton will likely be 
called upon to help the administration in its efforts. Because he 
declined to answer my question, we don't know what his thinking will 
be.
  While I might be inclined to give Mr. Compton the benefit of the 
doubt, we have seen too many officials in this administration who are 
working against the missions of the agencies to which they have been 
appointed. Financial regulators so often come from Wall Street. 
Environmental regulators so often come from the chemical industry and 
the oil industry. We have seen it time and again.
  This is happening at a time when we see the administration taking 
steps to

[[Page 20099]]

remove protections for average Americans and consumers in order to 
carry out the bidding of its supporters on Wall Street. These include 
sending in Mick Mulvaney, who once called the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau a ``sick, sad joke.'' He is now serving as its 
Director. It is his moonlighting job, as he is also the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget. His first act as Director of the CFPB 
was to block the payments of funds that were owed to consumers--
consumers who were cheated or wronged by Wells Fargo and other big 
banks or big financial institutions. The consumers, in many cases, were 
servicemembers who had been cheated by these financial institutions. On 
Mulvaney's first day on the job, he said: No, we are not going to move 
forward in collecting those penalties and in paying those consumers and 
those servicemembers and those seniors and those families.
  I am concerned about this emerging effort to roll back protections 
for consumers. I hope that Mr. Compton proves me wrong. I hope that he 
is a strong advocate within the agency and the administration for fair 
housing, for consumer protection, and for affordable housing. When 
given the chance to demonstrate his commitment to fair housing, he took 
a pass. These matters are too important to far too many Americans for 
us to leave their futures to chance. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
opposing Mr. Compton's nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on behalf 
of Mr. Compton and to conclude my remarks before the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise in support of Paul Compton to serve 
as HUD's next general counsel.
  Mr. Compton has dedicated his entire legal career to affordable 
housing and community development and for many years has headed the 
affordable housing practice of a prominent Alabama law firm. Over his 
distinguished career, Mr. Compton has played a direct role in over 70 
transactions that have led to the creation of more than 5,000 units of 
affordable housing throughout the Southeastern United States. Among 
peers, he has come to be recognized as an industry-leading expert on 
the low-income housing tax credit, the new markets tax credit, public-
private partnerships, and the regulatory environment surrounding 
housing production.
  Mr. Compton's extensive track record, his experience, and his 
intimate familiarity with HUD programs make him an ideal fit to join 
the leadership team at HUD. As general counsel, Mr. Compton will not 
only serve as the principal legal adviser to Secretary Carson, but he 
will have a hand in nearly every departmental initiative. Once 
confirmed, I look forward to working with Mr. Compton to find solutions 
to our Nation's housing challenges, to eliminate barriers to safe and 
affordable housing, and to reform our housing finance system.
  This confirmation vote is long overdue and is sorely needed. 
Following the storms that ravaged through Houston, Florida, Puerto 
Rico, the Virgin Islands, and elsewhere, HUD has been deployed on the 
frontlines, alongside FEMA and other agencies, and has worked to 
provide emergency and transitional housing to the thousands of families 
who have been displaced. This work is far from over, and I urge this 
body to confirm Mr. Compton today, as well as to confirm the various 
other HUD nominees who are awaiting votes so that they can get to work 
for the American people.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Compton 
nomination?
  Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the Senator from Arizona 
(Mr. McCain).
  Further, if present and voting the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. 
Capito) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) 
and the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 318 Ex.]

                                YEAS--62

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--34

     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Cortez Masto
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Baldwin
     Capito
     Duckworth
     McCain
  The nomination was confirmed.


                        Vote on West Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the West nomination?
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) 
and the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 23, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 319 Ex.]

                                YEAS--74

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--23

     Booker
     Brown
     Casey
     Cortez Masto
     Durbin
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hirono
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Peters
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Baldwin
     Duckworth
     McCain
  The nomination was confirmed.

[[Page 20100]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to 
reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The Senator from West Virginia.

                          ____________________