vote: the presiding officer: any senator in the chamber wishing to vote or change his vote? if not, the ayes are 57, nays are 38. the motion is agreed to.

mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, the senate's not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order.

mr. cornyn: mr. president, beginning today the senate budget committee will take the next step in our effort to enact pro-growth tax reform this time by marking up a budget resolution. the committee's work follows last week's unified framework on how to create jobs and how to put money back in the pockets of the hardworking americans that earn it. even though the framework is just a week old, there are some who are imaging the worst-case scenario. rumors are spreading like whilefire. last week the tax policy center published a report analyzing the plan which, i want to emphasize, hasn't been written yet. let me say that again. the tax policy certain published a report criticizing a plan that hasn't been written yet. this allegedly, or so-called

partisan think tank, has looked into the crystal ball and now claims to be able to see the future and says the future doesn't look very good. the tax planets says it will be a resounding flop. give me a break. i, for one, am sick and tired of this pessimism parading as expertise, people talking about things they know nothing about and claiming to be the expert. it's pretty common in washington, d.c., you might have noticed. it's not helpful to assume the worse and condemn this exercise before we're even starting and it's irresponsible to mass masqe bias, partisan analysis as somehow objective. s the wall street journal -- as the wall street journal wrote in response to the tax policy

center economists said it made two baseless claims. first that our proposal would, quote, reduce federal revenues by $2.4 trillion over the first ten years and $3.2 trillion over the subsequent decade. end quote. the second that the top 1% of the -- and, second, the top 1% of taxpayers would receive, quote, 50% of the total tax benefit. end quote. these statistics are pretty quotable and, indeed, rage like a prairie fire across the news media here in our country especially when the meadea -- media is predisposed to assume the worst without any assemblance of skepticism. after all the tax policy center's report made for easy headlines reciting the same tired refrains we have all heard

before that are all too predictable that somehow our tax plan is only designed to help the rich. apparently the temptation was just too great to resist even though the report didn't have a real author since no self-respecting economist wanted his or her name attached to it. as the wall street journal pointed out, however, last week's tax blueprint was just that, it was a starting place, a plan, a framework and nothing more. it excluded many different data points that would be important to a real analysis. for example, the income ranges for the three consolidated tax brackets. those weren't in the blueprint. the value of the expanded child tax credit and when it would be phased out. that wasn't in the blueprint either and you would need to know that information in order to make a reasoned, logical

analysis. the blueprint also doesn't mention tax rates for small businesses and what deductions will be eliminated as part of the base broadening. as we all know an army of lobbyists, lawyers, and other folks have -- since 1986 -- larded the tax code with a wide variety of special preferences. what we need to do is clear out some of that thicket so we can lower the rates for everybody so everybody gets a tax cut -- everybody. it won't be easy because you can imagine that army of lobbyists descending upon chill trying to -- upon capitol hill trying to carve this out, but we have to do it.

and none of these facts that would be important in in order to to conduct a reasoned and objective analysis, none of them were included in the framework, but all of them would have great potential to greatly move the final numbers. these and many other details are essential for any honest fiscal assessment of changes in our tax code. when will we begin to see some of those numbers? well, we need to pass the budget resolution out of the budget committee this week, which we will. then, after columbus day, we'll come back and debate and have a vote-a-rama to pass the budget resolution which will equip us with the technical tools we need in order to pass a reconciliation bill, but then the real work's going to be occurring in the finance committee on this side of the capitol where we'll take the

chairman's mark, the orange bill -- the original bill, which senator hatch will introduce at the committee and that will be stierm around the third or -- that will be sometime around the third or fourth week of this month. and then we're going to have an amendment process. the real question is will our democratic colleagues participate and make this a bipartisan bill? i hope they will. i also want to mention two other related points that deserve mention but were left out of the tax policy report. one is that the committees in congress will actually have the ability to come up with the details i mentioned. that will happen in the ways and means committee in the house and the finance committee in the senate. there will be, as there should be, discussion, deliberation, and compromise, as the normal legislative process works out. we need to -- there have been many around capitol hill who said we don't have enough,

quote, regular order. well, what that means is that we need to conduct the normal legislative process and have the committees actually do what they are designed to do which is to have hearings and vote on amendments and pass a bill out so it's available to be heard on the floor of the senate. and then the senate has a chance to amend it and vote on it and debate it. the second point i want to make is that any analysis of tax reform must consider what will be the impact on economic growth that will result from it. as the journal stated if the rate of gross domestic product growth speeds up from the obama pace from 2% to 3% per year, incomes would rise and revenues would increase to the treasury by some $2.5 trillion. sos that what's most -- so that's what's most often underlooked, including those who

look at this. if we're successful in passing pro-growth tax reform and tax cuts and we can get this sleeping giant of an aeconomy awake and -- of an economy awake and roaring again, just get it to 3%, which is below the average growth of the economy over the last three decades, it would put, just at 3%, $2.5 trillion more in the treasury. that would be great because it would help us not only pay our bills, it would help us pay down the deficit and the debt. so obviously these are really important factors to acknowledge. the best way to accomplish meaningful tax reform is to lower rates and simplify provisions across the board to give americans more take-home pay and have to spend less time hiring somebody just to complete their tax return. we can't simply throw up our hands and do nothing and accept

the status quo because american workers and job creators can't afford the status quo. i'm optimistic that the framework -- about the framework and look forward to working with my colleagues in the finance committee in the days and weeks ahead. what we have now is a useful starting point and we need to fill in the blarntion, and -- blanks, and then we can have a debate, and we will, based on the facts and not on someone's wild fevered imagines on what the -- images on what it might look like. we have the highest tax rate in the world for corporations, for businesses. this used to be something that the president of the united states, barack obama acknowledged, said we need to reduce that in order to to be competitive globally. we know too many of our jobs are moving overseas. i mentioned yesterday that

i.b.m., one of the largest employers in the world has more employees in india than the united states. there are probably varied reasons for that, including our tax code. some of it has access to highly trained workers and lower costs and the like. but our tax code is a self-inflicted economic wound for our country and the people who pay the price for that are the people whose wages are stagnant or people who are looking it for a job -- looking for a job and can't find one and we need to put more money back in their pocket, let them keep more of what they earn and get this economy growing again. finally, mr. president, yesterday the house passed a bill i introduced with senators klobuchar, heller that helps to stop the exploitation of children and over the internet by reauthorizing the internet

against children. the internet crime against children task force is a network of 61 coordinated entities that represent 3,500 federal and local law enforcement agencies that prosecute child predators. they provide training and technical assistance and advanced forensic methods. they also help facilitate community education to make parents more aware of this threat against all of our children so we can prevent internet crimes against children before they even happen. this is an issue i cared about for a long time, starting with my service as attorney general of texas. i saw firsthand how vulnerable children can quickly become victimized in the hands of some truly despicable individuals, and i also learned about the resources it takes to stop and prosecute these predators.

and, like the presiding officer who also served as attorney general, we know that not all of our jurisdictions have access to the same sort of resources so it's important to have this resource in order to have them investigate and prosecute these crimes. i recall back in 2000 when i started the texas internet bureau, kind of a quaint title these days, now called the crime unit. tragically in this day and age the internet provides a safe harbor for too many people who want to use it for their own nefarious purposes. it can be a difficult arena for our law enforcement to navigate, but this bill will ensure that they will have the resources to fight cyber crimes and keep the community safe by reauthorizing programs until 2022. i'm happy that the house has

acted and i'm thankful for the help of my colleagues from connecticut, minnesota, and nevada. i look forward to work to repass this legislation in the senate as soon as possible. mr. president, i have 17 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they've been approved by both the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. cornyn: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from maine. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that 9 quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: mr. president, i rise today to talk about a subject that's been much on our minds recently, in recent weeks and months and in fact years and that is health care. one of the most complex, confusing but important topics that we have to consider. before i get into the bulk of what i want to address, i think i want to make the point once again that as we're debating health care and debating who pays, how much they pay, whether it's the a.c.a. or medicare or medicaid or private insurance or private pay, we also have to begin a serious discussion about the underlying cost of health

care. regardless of who is paying, it's going to break us. if health care continues to grow and cost as it has over the last 20 years, it's going to eat the federal budget, family budgets, individual budgets, and it's going to be something that we absolutely have to address. usually around here we don't address something until it's a crisis. i would argue as we're approaching 20% of g.d.p., one out of every $5 in the country being committed to health care costs, more than twice as much as most other countries in the world, far more than any other country in the world, we have to address this issue. and arguing about whole pays is not going to solve the problem. that's important because in the interim, that's what's going to protect our citizens. coverage is what's going to protect our citizens from a health care disaster, a health care crisis. but i want to previous ras my -- previous -- preface my remarks

and this is something we all need to be thinking about is how do we move beyond the discussion we're having now, not that it's not more than but we also need to move beyond to start talking about the underlying cost and why is it that americans are paying virtually twice as much as anyone in the world for health care per capita or as a percent of g.d.p. or however you want to calculate it without noticeably better results? and in fact, most worldwide studies indicate that our results of our health care system are not as good as many other countries. it would be one thing if we were paying a lot of money and getting absolutely superior care across the board in our country, but that's not the case. in measurements like infant mortality, longevity, kind of standard, basic health care indicators, we're not doing very well yet we're paying twice as much. there's something wrong with that, and we have to address it. now, right now i want to talk about the affordable care act.

and i want to start with the point that it is the law of the land. it is the law of the land and what i'm rising today in sadness but also in some anger because there's a lot of talk with the -- talk about the affordable care act collapsing, imploding. mr. president, it's not collapsing. it's being mugged. it's being stabbed in the back. it's being sabotaged deliberately and consciously by the actions of the administration. and i want to emphasize this isn't about ideology. it's not about politics. it's not about who wins and who loses or which party is up or who voted or who didn't. this is about people. and it's about people in maine. it's about people who many of whom got care for the first time under the affordable care act.

lobstermen, small farmers, small business people, individuals finally had a shot at reasonably priced health care. it's not perfect by any means. i would never argue that. and in fact, i've been working on proposals here since the day i got here on how to improve it, how to fix some of the problems, how to make it better, how to have the effects be less intense on some parts of our economy. but it is the law of the land and the impacts of what we do here or don't do here fall on real people, real people in my case in my home state of maine. the affordable care act is not collapsing. it's being sabotaged. here's a partial list. in january during the period

when the -- when the last open enrollment period, one of the first acts of the new administration was to cut the advertising on television advising people that they had this health care option. cut the ads. that's number one. that was back in january. then they announced they were going to minimize the enforcement of the personal mandate. well, if you tell somebody you're not going to enforce something, that's an invitation to not abide by it, to not pay any attention to it. people can argue about whether that is desirable but that's the law. and to announce administratively you're not growing to enforce it, again what does that do? it reduces the number of people that are going to get health care, and that turn undermines the individual market and that in turn makes it less financially viable. that is a deliberate act that will undermine the viability of this law.

in april began a series of what turned into seven different threats from various people in the administration to not make the legally mandated c.s.r. payments, cost-sharing reduction payments, which are not bailouts to insurance companies but were designed as part of the law to hold the rates down and to hold the deductibles down for those people buying coverage under the affordable care act. by continuously threatening the reduction or the elimination of these payments, it has created an uncertainty in the marketplace that is now coming home to roost. just last week, anthem announced they are leaving the maine marketplace. they cited a number of reasons, but one of the chief reasons was uncertainty -- the uncertainty created by whether or not these payments are going to be made. recently the help committee had

a series of hearings on this subject. they had a bipartisan group of governors, they had a bipartisan group of insurance commissioners, health experts from across the country. i was at all but one of those hearings, and i believe i'm right in saying it was unanimous that we must ensure the continuation of the c.s.r. payments in order to stabilize the market and reduce premiums projected to increase this coming year. the number nationally is estimated to be about 20%. 20% increase attributable to the failure to ensure that the c.s.r. payments will be made. because an insurance company, if they're setting rates, have to factor into their rates the risk of these payments not being made. and the testimony is it depends on -- somewhat on the state but roughly 20% increase attributable to just this fact.

if we could pass legislation here, and unfortunately we've missed the deadline but we pay be able to work that because the deadline was just last week, but if we could simply ensure those payments are made, that in itself would lower rates by 20% next year on a silver plan. and by the way, if those c.s.r.'s aren't made and the rates go up, ironically that means the mandatory payments of subsidies to individuals under the affordable care act will also go up so it will cost the treasury money, additional money not accounted for, roughly $200 billion over the next ten years. what else has gone on? in may another from the head of the office of management and budget, the administration hasn't decided whether to pay the c.s.r.'s. that's a big red signal to the

insurance companies. you can't count on this so you better raise rates. in may the budget was released, and in the budget there were drastic cuts in the call centers for the affordable care act, in the in-person assistance and in marketing. and just for good measure, they announced they were cutting the enrollment period in half from three months to six weeks. what possible reason can there be to do that except that you want fewer people to sign up? that's called sabotage, reducing from three months to six weeks. then all along the health and human services department has been monkeying around with the website taking down explanatory material about the affordable care act, taking down material indicating why this is a good deal for people, and instead putting up critical material.

august 31, the administration announces reductions in outreach of 90% and cuts in assistance to people trying to navigate this system by 40%. this is complicated stuff. any of us who have signed up for insurance, i've gone on that we all have affordable care act. most nobody knows that but we had to go on the website and choose a policy for ourselves. it's hard. it's complicated. and to take away the people who are out in the communities helping people to work through these various decisions and weigh the different policies and the deductibles and how to compare them, to take that away is the same as taking away the coverage. it's an act of sabotage. and then the most recent -- i just learned about this this morning. this is amazing. the affordable care act is based on a website. health carehealthcare.gov and ww

it had terrible problems when it started. there is no excuse for that i was critical of it at the time. but those were problems that weren't intentional. now intentional problems are being created. but this is the one that really gets me. i just learned this morning that every sunday during the bob tailed enrollment period, six weeks enrollment period, every sunday that website is going to be closed for 12 hours for maintenance. isn't that amazing? 12 hours on the one day of the week where many working people are going to have an opportunity to try to understand this system and enroll, they're going to be down from midnight saturday night til noon on sunday, middle of the day on sunday. now, i want to go back to the beginning. this isn't about ideology. this is about seeing that the laws are faithfully executed. that's why they call it the

administration. the administration is supposed to administer the laws, not unadd minister them -- not unadministratioununadminister t. why would people want fewer insurance? i'm at loss to understand the motivation. i understand if you don't like the a.c.a. if you don't like the a.c.a., let's find ways to improve it, change it but figure out how to keep people with health insurance. the uninsured rate in america has fallen 50% since the affordable care act. that's an enormous achievement. it's one that should be celebrated, not sabotaged. and that's -- and that is what is so puzzling about this. fewer people with coverage and higher costs to the treasurery. mr. president, we -- treasury. mr. president, we can do better than this. these are all things that the

administration in good faith can say, okay, we don't like the a.c.a., but we're going to -- we're going to move beyond the politics of this and try to help people get the coverage that they desperately need. this is about real people's lives. this is about lifting the threat, the cloud of a health care disaster both physically and financially from families across america, millions of families, not tens of thousands, millions of families. and why we are deliberately trying to undermine and sabotage something that is so meaningful to so many people, i just don't get it. i think, as you can tell, it makes me angry but mostly it makes me sad because i know people in maine who benefited, who have gotten coverage, who didn't have it before, who won't

have it if this is taken away. people who need those navigators to help them, people who need to be able to use the website on a sunday morning, people who need to have rates that are lower because the c.s.r.'s have been funded and we aren't continuously raising the uncertainty of that piece of this law. madam president, we can do better. this is about the health of our people. i can't think of anything more important. and we can have different waifs getting there, but rate now we have a law that's in place, and until we change it -- and we should change it, we should fix it, but we should administer it straight up, straight forwardly, as it was written and as it was intended. madam president, this is too important for politics. it is too important

torriddology. this is all -- it is too important for ideology. this is about people and their health. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: madam president, last week i joined with the secretary of the treasury-to-, the director of the national economic council, our senate majority leader, the speaker of the house, and the chairman of the house ways and means committee in releasing a unified framework for tax reform. this is a big step in the ongoing effort to overhaul our nation's miserable tax code. i've been here in the senate a while, and i can only remember a few times when the white house and the house and the senate leadership were in agreement on an issue as complicated as tax reform. so the current state of affairs is pretty remarkable. still, as we made clear in the framework document, this is only a step. it is not a final product. now, the house and the senate tax-writing committees will be taxed with putting together

legislation aimed at meeting the goals and principles outlined in the framework. therefore, as the chairman of the senate finance committee, my top goal at the moment is to produce a comprehensive tax reform bill that can get at least 14 votes in the committee. because without that, there likely won't be any tax reform. but before we can get to that point, we need to pass the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution. make no mistake, the budget resolution is critical to our tax reform efforts. if we're going to move a tax reform vehicle in the current environment, we need a resolution in place with a workable reconciliation instruction that will allow us to produce a bill of sufficient size and scope to give middle-class taxpayers a pay raise, grow our economy, and create more american jobs. as we all know, the budget

committee will begin marking up their resolution later today and it includes the type of instruction we need to produce a bill that will fix our broken tax system. boost economic growth, and give a pay raise to middle-class americans. i'm grateful for the leadership of chairman enzi and all of our colleagues on the budget committee for their work in crafting the resolution, and i want to urge everyone who supports tax reform, whether they're in congress or elsewhere, to support the budget resolution. once again, that is the next big step in this process, and it is an absolutely essential step. once that's done, the finance committee will be able to move forward on crafting and marking up a tax reform bill. some have said that tax reform is a do-or-die moment for the g.o.p. i wholeheartedly believe that to be true, not just because we might lose an election or that

our poll numbers might go down. republicans have promised for some time now that we will deliver meaningful, comprehensive tax reform that will spur economic growth, increase wages and well-paying jobs, and simplify our existing system. we need to deliver on that promise and not just because we'll suffer politically if we don't. we need to deliver because the cost of doing nothing, the cost of maintaining the status quo for the foreseeable future will be too much for the american people and our economy to bear. the last major overhaul of our tax code was 34 -- 31 years ago, excuse me. and in many respects, our current tax system was built for the economy of 1986. it is ill-suited for the needs of today. in the last 31 years we've seen a dramatic increase in international trade and expanded

globalization. we've seen the fall of the soviet union and the collapse of most centrally run economies. and of course we've seen the development and rapid expansion of the internet, which has, in many respects, remade the entire world several times over. america no longer has a competitive tax code. instead, we have a byzantine system with exceptionally high rates and an array of overlapping and often less-than-effective deductions, exclusions, and credits. this isn't just a parade of horribles trotted out by republicans. these problems have been acknowledged by a number of prominent democrats like presidents clinton and obama, not to mention our current senate minority leader and the ranking member of the finance committee, senator wyden. we all know that the system isn't working. still, in many respects, we have

politics as usual around here, when we talk about tax reform. while both parties have supported reforms in the recent past, including a number of reforms included in the framework, we're already hearing the same tired arguments that come up every time republicans want to talk about tax reform. according to the opponents of reform, our, quote, plan, unquote, will cut taxes on the superrich. our, quote, plan, unquote, will raise taxes on the poor. our, quote, plan, unquote, will harm the middle class. our, quote, plan, unquote, is a giveaway to greedy corporations. these are some pretty odd claims, given that as of right now no completed, quote, plan, unquote, exists. we have a framework and we're not calling it that simply for p.r. reasons. we have some basic principles

and targets the leaders have agreed upon, but as the framework makes clear, the finance and ways and means committees have been tasked with filling in the details and writing legislation. here are just some of the details not included in the framework. income thresholds for individual tax brackets. the framework includes rate targets for three brackets, but the breakdown of those brackets is still to be determined. the size of the enhanced child tax credit. the framework anticipates an increase, but it doesn't specify an amount. the existence and rate of the highest bracket. our document leaves room for the creation of a fourth bracket at the high end, but it does not include any rate target. safeguards to prevent abuse of the separate pass-through rates.

these are just some of the key details that need to be filled in. my point is that no one can make any definitive statements or make any credible estimates about the fiscal impact of the plan until the committees do more work. still, that hasn't stopped people from trying. last week the left-leaning tax policy center released an unattributed, quote, analysis, unquote, of the framework that appeared to confirm a number of the blanket claims critics have made about our, quote, plan, unquote. as we all know, left-leaning pundits, liberal media outlets, and many of our friends on the other side seem to love the t.p.c., apparently because the t.p.c. is willing to provide estimates and analysis about tax

plans without waiting for all the borg details. -- all the boring details. we all remember well when t.p.c. wrote mitt romney's tax plan for him and claimed that he wanted to raise taxes on the middle class. their, quote, analysis, unquote, of the romney plan, a plan that was not in existence beyond a broad set of principles, became the gospel for our friends on the other side, and their estimates were repeated time and again, never mind the fact that they didn't have nearly enough evidenced to support their assertions. the t.p.c. appears to be on the same track with regard to the unified framework. i guess they think they can get away with it again. maybe they can. i don't know. the t.p.c. document from last week included a relatively precise estimate of lost revenue that they claim would result from the framework. it also estimated how much of

the tax benefit of the framework would go to the 1% of earners, again, with a fair amount of precision. how they got to these results is certainly to me a mystery. madam president, there is simply no way for t.p.c. or anyone to deliver these kinds of specific estimates with the information provided in the framework. to get their estimates, they filled in blanks with numbers from other proposals, added a pile of exceptionally pessimistic and biased economic assumptions, and came up with a tax plan that for all intents and purse is their own -- and purposes is their own. just because they say this, quote, analysis, unquote, was performed on the unified framework and not just a plan that he made up themselves --

they made up themselves doesn't suddenly that can their estimates credible. still, i expect to hear a lot about the t.p.c., quote, analysis, unquote, in the coming weeks. some will treat their estimates as fact, and i expect we'll see them cited in a few campaign commercials before too long. breaking from any notion of professional accountability, the t.p.c., quote, analysis, unquote, was, according to t.p.c.'s report, authored by t.p.c. staff. evidently, no one in an organization that describes itself as, quote, nonpartisan, unquote, wanted to put their name on a document that would be used in such a partisan manner. let's be clear. madam president, we can't separate this kind of speculative, quote, analysis, unquote, from the way it's being used by our friends on the other

side. it has become fodder for more of the same -- more of the same partisan attacks. going forward, i hope that t.p.c. and other think tanks would acknowledge the still-u still-undefined features of the framework, including the commitment to maintain the current progressivity of the tax code, which will require adjustments in order to achieve. i think groups like t.p.c. can be helpful if they avoid the partisan criticisms and focus on shedding light and providing accurate assessments of various proposals. everyone who has an interest in these issues should wait and let the tax-writing committees do their work. in the finance committee, we're going to write a committee bill. any member who is sincerely interested in working with us will get a chance to contribute, whether they are republican or democrat. we're going to have a markup where the bill will be debated

and amended in the light of the day. and thereafter i expect we'll have a fair and open amendment process on the floor, despite some odd claims to the contrary. the joint committee on taxation will score the bill. at the end of the day, people will be free to disagree with the bill and to vote against it, but no one will be able to credibly claim that the legislation was written behind closed doors or that the american people didn't get a chance to see what was in the bill. and read accurate accounts of the fiscal and economic impact. i want to work with anyone who is willing to come to the table in good faith. i think the framework puts forward a number of general proposals that both parties can support. there is fertile ground for

bipartisanship. bipartisan here, if my democratic colleagues are willing to set aside some of the unreasonable preconditions they've put on their involvement in tax reform. the last time i checked, both republicans and democrats supported tax relief for low- and middle-income families. last time i checked, reducing our uncompetitive corporate tax rate was a bipartisan objective. and the last time i checked, both republican and democratic voters were in need of higher wages, more jobs, and a more competitive economy. this is going to be a difficult process, whether it is bipartisan or partisan. there is a long list of sacred cows in our tax code, each of them with a constituency that will fight to keep them in place. we're going to have to eliminate a number of tax deductions and

credits if we're going to be fiscally responsible, including a number of provisions that are under the current system pretty popular in certain segments of the economy country. the framework specifies two actions that should stay in place because they benefit many in the middle class, and they are designed to achieve important policy goals. everything else is currently on the table, including items that i have personally championed in the past. we've already seen stories about how republicans are already divided on the fate of the state and local tax deduction. make no mistake, that's a pretty popular deduction. particularly among democrats, but it has some republican supporters as well. i would remind my colleagues who are adamant about preserving the state and local tax deduction

that the benefits of that particular provision skew heavily toward higher income earners, especially those living in high-tax cities and states. so if our main goal is to help the middle class, i would hope that there won't be -- there won't be many senators who will fall on their swords in order to keep these -- this particular deduction in place. still, nothing is set in stone, and most items are currently still up for negotiation. the state and local tax deduction is like virtually every other tax provision currently on the table, and we may very well have to pare it back one way or the other. we need to see how the numbers work out before we can speak definitively on this or any other tax policy item. before i conclude,

madam president, let me just say that this is a once in a generation opportunity. there is currently more momentum in favor of tax reform than at any other time in the past three decades. all of us should be willing to take advantage of this opportunity. all of us should be able to give in order to get a final bill done that will make sense, that will get us back on track. i am hopeful that we can have a bipartisan effort here, but whether we do or don't, i intend to see that we get tax reform done and that we get it done in the best interests of our country, the best interests of our people, and above all the best interests of the middle class. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. casey: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you, madam president. i'd ask consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you very much. i come to the floor today for the second time this week to highlight the tragic human costs of gun violence. i will speak today about just one victim. of course we're thinking as well about the 58 victims in las vegas. not counting the killer in that total. last count was 58 victims. and the well over 500 injured. we have some sense of the

gravity of the violence that played out in las vegas. i'm not sure that any of us can fully understand it. some of us will never quite understand what happened there. but i think we have to dedicate ourselves to taking action. i'll get to that in a moment. but today i'm here to honor the memory of gerard granzol, a resident of philadelphia who lost his life to gun violence last month as he protected his 2-year-old daughter from carjackers. this was truly a senseless tragedy, one that took a father from his wife and two young daughters, one that robbed the spring garden neighborhood in philadelphia of a man who is a beloved member of the community. that's i think an understatement. gerard was known as jerry. his wife kristen and their

2-year-old daughter had welcomed a second baby girl into their family this past july. in addition to raising his family and working at a legal recruiting firm, jerry dedicated his time and energy to making his community a better place. as a member of the spring garden civic association, he was the, quote, go-to guy, unquote, of his community, in the words of philadelphia city council president darryl clark. jerry was an avid hockey player, the neighborhood handyman, the person who would man the grill for block parties. his neighbors and friends have spoken of his happy, magnetic personality, and his willingness to help others. you can tell how important jerry was to his family, friends, and community. you can tell what an impact he had on the people he met because

thousands, thousands of people lined up at the cathedral basilica of saints peter and paul a few weeks ago to pay their respects to jerry and to celebrate his life. and the people who knew him are keeping his memory alive on a facebook page where they shared pictures and stories of jerry hiking, painting, playing hockey, full of life and surrounded by friends and family. this is the man who became yet another victim of gun violence last month after he refused to give a pair of robbers his car keys because his 2-year-old was in the back seat. this was a truly senseless act of violence that has shaken his family, his friends, and his community. two suspects in this terrible crime are now in custody, and i hope that proceedings in the justice system in philadelphia

can provide some measure of relief, some measure of comfort, and we pray even closure to the granzol family. but whatever relief it might provide, justice can't heal every wound. it can't bring jerry back to kristen, their daughters, and their family, friends, and neighbors. but we can make sure that his memory lives on in the way that we treat each other, and i hope we can honor jerry's life by dedicating ourselves to improving the lives of our neighbors and working together to solve problems. one thing i hope we can do here on the specific issue of gun violence is to work on legislation and policy that will at least, at least reduce the

likelihood that someone like jerry will lose his life. it's part of a longer conversation. i won't get into the list of issues we should be working on, some of those i have outlined already, but we can't simply, as we often do, express condolence and pay tribute that's appropriate to those whose lives have been lost and those who may have been injured in las vegas and so many other places around the country. we have got to do more than that. we can't stop with those expressions, those appropriate and essential expressions of sympathy and solidarity and commendation for the great work of law enforcement and emergency personnel. we have got to do more than that. but today, as we remember jerry, we offer condolences, but we offer prayers to his wife

kristen, to their daughters, and to the family and the friends of the spring garden neighborhood in philadelphia, but once again, stopping there is not enough, and there are plenty of examples of people that lose their lives in a city like philadelphia or cities around the country that may not add up to 58 drets, may not -- 58 deaths, may not add up to 500-plus injured, but when you take just one life -- in this case, the life that we highlight today, jerry's life -- it's reason enough to come together to work on new approaches, commonsense approaches to, as i said before, reduce the likelihood. no one is suggesting that we can pass something that will be a magic wand, to take away all of these acts of violence. but we shouldn't throw up our hands and say there is absolutely nothing we can do to

reduce the likelihood that people will lose their lives in an act -- due to an act of gun violence. i refuse to accept that as an american, that there is nothing we can do legislatively to reduce that likelihood or even, god willing, to substantially reduce the likelihood. so when so when we're thinking about jerry today, i hope we can commit ourselves to action and debate and maybe even consensus on legislation and policy can move forward in the right direction. madam president, i would yield the floor.

mr. lankford: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: i would recommend to this body our economy's

stuck. we're in a bad spot of just treading water. over the last 11 years our gross domestic product -- that's how much our economy is growing -- has been 1.9%. 1.9%, that's a tiny change. to p give you a perspective, over the last 100 years, there's not been a single decade that we've had a year without at least 3% growth in that until the last decade. literally, our economy that is typically growing -- as more jobs are being added, people are making more money, there's more happening, we're selling more internationally, for the last few years it has slowly grown and grown and grown until the last ten years and it's flattened out. we're stuck. now when i was younger, we had a record player in the house. now, for all of you under 40, i would explain a record player

to say it's kind of like a c.d. player, only larger and made of vinyl, but if i say that the under 20 crowd would say what's a c.d. player? let me just say this, the big black pieces of vinyl that played music in my house that occasionally would get stuck and the record needle would land in the same groove and play the same part of the song over and over again, it was my job as the youngest one in the house to go over to the record and bump it and get it out of that. our economy needs that. we need to be able to get over to our economy that is stuck in the same groove at 1.9% in this incredibly low growth rate and give it a bump. now that bump can come in a lot of ways. increasing international trade would be a great help. engaging more internationally. keeping our regulations commonsense and as nonintrusive as possible so that small businesses and medium sized businesses aren't panicked all

the time of what the federal government is going to do to them with a new regulation. just keep it commonsense and simple. how about making sure there are fewer federal forms. the federal forms that people have to fill out not only are simple to do but they don't duplicate with multiple different agencies. it would be good if people who worked in small, medium and large businesses spent more time selling products than filling out a form for a federal bureaucracy that is never going to read that form anyway. the obvious way to bump the record deal in our economy right now is tax reform. it's not the main thing that's going to do everything but it's a pretty big element. and if we can get tax reform done, it actually gives our economy the little bit of a boost. now i have folks that will say, how does that make a difference? when you do tax reform why does that actually increase economic activity? quite frankly, people around the country and around my state in oklahoma are struggling to be able to save money because their wages aren't growing up at the same speed that everything else

is going up in price. so people need to be able to save more money and to be able to have more money to be able to spend. but it's also we need to create more jobs, and we need to get companies going again, actually developing more jobs. if people actually can get a job, if people can make more money at that job and if people actually have more take-home pay, they spend a little more, they save a little more, the company expands a little more. and if each place does that a little bit, it dramatically increases our economy around the country. and we know it because we feel it. making the tax code simpler for every person and every business means that people don't have to pay as much to have their taxes done. maybe you can do your own taxes because it would be simple enough to do it and it wouldn't cost so much. and accountants that work for businesses could go back to working for their businesses to see how they can make their business more efficient rather than spending all their time on tax policy. i think we should follow the lead of the president on this. the president made a very clear statement. he said let's help our companies

compete, but to do that we have to also knock down barriers that stand in the way of their success. for example, the president said, over the years a parade of lobbyists have rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries. those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all, but the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. it makes no sense and it has to change. so tonight, the president said, i'm asking democrats and republicans to simplify the system, get rid of the loopholes, level the playing field, and use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years. oh, did i fail to mention that president is president obama that said that? president obama right down the hallway in 2011 in his state of the union address, that's what he said we should do. simplify the system, lower the

corporate tax rate, be able to deal with all the loopholes that are in the system. it shouldn't be a partisan issue. everyone sees this. republican and democrat alike. so my focus is how do we actually get this done and not make it into a partisan food fight here, but to actually do what's right for the american people and help bump the economy to be able to help get us going again. in my state, whether you live in valiant or godybo, or tulsa, oklahoma city or lawton, this matters, because everyone, unfortunately, pays taxes. everyone knows it's a necessary thing, but we want to have it as simple as possible and to have it as low as possible and want to make sure it's as fair as possible. so the framework has been presented this past week. a simple framework for how do we deal with tax policy. it talks about consolidating our

rates. we've got seven rates now. we would drop that down to four rates. there would be a zero percent rate, a 12% and a 35% rate. some folks asked me about the 0% rate because for a lot of americans they say one simple things. every american is an american and every american should pay a little bit in taxes. i would agree, by the way. but every american is paying some taxes. and for those folks at the lowest end of the scale, i would propose dropping the rate to zero for them on income taxes but they are paying their fair share in property taxes, in gas tax, in sales tax. they're helping their local fire department, their local police department. they're paying for the roads that are federally subsidized based on their gas tax. they are paying taxes, but if they are not at a rate and an income high enough to be able to survive on that rate, let's drop theirs to a zero percent for income tax but they'll keep some of the other taxes so h they'll still contribute to

society and still be a part of this great nation. dropping those rates down to the lowest bracket being zero percent for income tax, then a 12%, 25% and 35% is a pretty standard rate. quite frankly, this is something that was proposed in the simpson-bowles proposal before. that was a bipartisan proposal to be able to come out on how we could reform the system. eliminating the alternative minimum tax, you want to talk about a complicated tax code, we have basically two tax codes. we have the standard tax code. then we have the alternative minimum tax. and everyone who does their taxes has to do them twice to be able to evaluate which one of the codes do they actually fit into. if you use an electronic system, you lose track of it because the electronic system on your computer is doing that for you. a.m.t. dramatically increases the complexity of the code. we should do away with that. if we want to protect the folks that are in the lowest bracket then let's double what is the standard deduction. right now the standard deduction is about $12,000.

let's double that to about $24,000. that $24,000 amount for families would mean the first $24,000 of income that you would make as a family, you would fall into that zero percent bracket. you're paying zero income tax to the federal government until you make more than $24,000. that protects a lot of families in the lowest end of the bracket to make sure that they're not falling into this. quite frankly, in oklahoma, most oklahomans just use the standard deduction. they don't itemize. doubling the itemized deductions would mean a lot of specialized deductions that everyone else gets actually flattens it out and makes it fair. the number-one thing that i hear from people when they fill out their taxes is not only do they fill them out and turn them in and say i have no idea whether i did them right. it was so complicated, i don't know if it's right. the second thing, right behind it is why is it when i read through the 100 pages of instructions on the 1040 form, why is it when i read through

that, every deduction seems to be for someone else? so let's increase the standard deductions so everybody gets a simpler, flatter, simpler, fairer system. and let's keep the biggest of the deductions that the most americans use, like the charitable deduction or the mortgage interest deduction. if there's any two deductions that most people use, it's those two. so protect those two in the system. reducing the corporate tax rate, i have folks say that only benefits the biggest businesses. i always smile and say those are actually people that employ people. and if you reduce the corporate rate, that means they're more competitive internationally. that means they're not having to move their corporate headquarters overseas. for years we have as a nation used the carrot and stick approach on trying to keep businesses here in the united states. that is if they go overseas, beat them with a stick and try to punish them for trying to move overseas. why don't we use the carrot approach. why don't we find out why

they're moving overseas and fix that. many of these companies are moving overseas because of the very high corporate tax rate here in the united states. let's fix that. over the decades many of our competing nations have done that. we should fix that. that increases the number of jobs. that increases economic activity and that keeps american jobs in america. we should deal with the child tax credits and continue to be able to protect that for families. we can deal with how we do expensing. if you don't run a business, that doesn't matter much to you. but if you're the one who owns the small business, you understand how expensing works. if you have a cost to your business this year if you can't write it off in this year, you've got to expand that out, you know that slows you down. here's the basics of it. if you're running a small business and need to buy a new pickup for your business, if it takes you years to be able to depreciate that out, you're slower to do it. but if you know you can depreciate it out this year in your business you're more likely

to buy that. so, so what? that business buys a new truck this year. well, that only benefits that business in having new equipment, but it also benefits the ford dealership down the street that actually sold them the truck. and it benefits all of the people in the area that helped supply that for that vehicle. so it trickles down through the rest of the economy. there are ways to be able to, to accomplish all these things and to be able to be as simple as we possibly can be. there's a lot of conversation about worldwide taxation as well. people seem to get confused on that area because most people don't live in that world. here's the basics of it. right now if you're an american company and you're selling things overseas and doing business overseas, when you make a profit overseas, and you try to bring that money back, you get taxed overseas at their tax rate, which you should -- in that country you're making a product and selling it there. but you get taxed again when you bring it back to the united states. we're the only country that does it that way.

if we'll just simplify the system, we'll actually encourage companies to be able to stay in america and then do business all over the world rather than moving their company out of america. it's a simple way to be able to do it. and it's a way that we can do and should do. you'll hear the term called repatriation. that's really what it's about, is americans being able to move their money from overseas accounts back to the united states. and get that money moving. there's a lot of conversation about the stimulus plan back in 2009. trying to get almost $1 trillion of government money -- that's money from you and i -- from government money and to be able to move that it around in a stimulus package. let me give you the figure. right now it's estimated that american companies have about $2.5 trillion of private money parked overseas, that they're not going to bring back to our economy because of the high cost of the tax coming back. if we were able to change that system, $2.5 trillion of

private money would move from overseas back into the united states. what effect would that have on our economy? i would stipulate it would be a pretty dramatic effect it would have on our economy. we can fix this. we can resolve this. this shouldn't be as hard as we're making it. and it can be a bipartisan approach by addressing things, taking care of our family, simplifying the code, making sure that deductions are not for a few but spread out, protecting things like charitable giving and most things that americans use. this is the parameters that we're trying to work through over the next couple of weeks. and hopefully in the coming months, as we work through all the details in the committee with amendments and fighting our way to the -- through the process we'll be able to get to a decision that will help us long term as a nation. this is something that can and should be resolved.

this body has had a hard time moving on the biggest issues that we face as a nation because of the rules -- because the rules of this body prohibit us from debating it. the rules haven't changed over the past couple of decades, but the way that we have prayed has and the american people are ticked about it and rightfully so and senators are frustrated by it. the rules of the senate are made by the senate and so if we're frustrated by the rules, we should address them. there are three basic rule changes that i think changes dramatically. the biggest one is the filibuster rule. we have two filibusters for every single bill that comes up, one at the beginning, you have to have 60 votessor start debate, 60 votes to stop debate and then the bill passes with 61. we should be able to get on to a bill regardless of whether it's

republicans or democrats in the majority, the majority party should be able to bring up a bill and debate it without being stopped. let's bring up any issue and actual -- actually debate it. if we can't find agreement, keep the 60 votes at the end of it so we can keep debate going until it gets resolved. we should be able to debate the issues. the second big issue is we have to deal with nominations in an appropriate time period many right now currently my democratic colleagues are forcing the long period of time in debate for every single nominee that comes. i've heard folks say that's what republicans did in the past. s that actually not true. this is the first time it happened like this. under current structure, like in this week, we're going to move four nominees for the president in one week -- four. current structure, it will take 11 years for president trump to

get his staff -- 11 years. let me give you a barometer. as of this same date, as of yesterday, president trump has 153 confirmations total. at this same date president obama had 327 total. president bush had 358 total at the same point. president trump is not getting his nominees heard and it is being slow walked through the process. we have to fix that. we need to allow two, four, or eight hours of debate, not the protracted 30 hours of debate for each nominee. it is a resolved issue. these individuals have gone through committee, voted on in committee, by the time it gets to the floor is resolved. the 30 hours of debate time is purely delay tactics. we should be able to stop that. if we want to get the senate going again, we can agree to a

rule change that would allow for what is called dual tracking. we would do nominations in the morning and legislation in the afternoon. right now we can only do one thing at a time in the senate -- one thing at a time. so while we're waiting on a nomination vote, everything waits untils that done -- until that's done and it slows town the process. why can't we do nominations in the morning, legislation in the afternoon? there are basic rule changes that will help that are not partisan issues that are designed to get the senate moving regardless of whose in the majority. we've got to resolve this long term. if we don't, the american people will continue to be frustrated and we, as senators, will continue to be frustrated. one last thing. this weekend's an anniversary i don't like bringing up. one year ago this weekend a gentleman named andrew brunson was detained in turkey. he's been a pastor in turkey for

more than 20 years and a united states senate. he has faithfully served the people of turkey for two decades. a year ago this weekend he was picked up by local authorities, being detained for months and months and months without charges, just swept up and held. things are changing rapidly in turkey right now. turkey is not the same nato ally and friend to the united states that they have been. the leadership of turkey is radically changing the nature of that very open democracy and shutting them down to become more and more of an authoritarian government, those who do mission work there and have friends and family there need to be aware that americans are being swept up and detained without charges and held, now in this case of dr. brunson, for a year. i have to warn fellow americans

that turkey is not necessarily a safe place to do business and to travel anymore. turkey has the authority right now to be able to release dr. brunson. he's an american citizen and a pastor. they have the ability to be able to do that. recently the appropriations committee passed an amendment into an appropriation bill giving additional authority to our state department to be able to take action against turkish officials that hold american citizens like this and put specific sanctions on those individuals. i hope that the state department will use that tool in their toolbox to apply pressure to the turkish people to not impose arbitrary detention on united states citizens. i hope in the days ahead that the turkish government will turn around to a more open democracy. they have been a nation in the past that was historic for their

stand for religious liberty and democracy and we would love to see a turkish ally still stand for the protection of all citizens in the days ahead. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: as the ranking democrat on the senate finance committee, i followed our colleague's comments with respect to taxes and the debate over tax reform with considerable interest. and i will just tell you, my goodness, how i wish we could have what our colleague called an uninhibited process with respect to the debate over tax reform. i've written an actual bipartisan tax reform bill with our colleague who is now a part of the trump administration, senator coats. unfortunately what our colleague

laudably called for is not on offer. the senate majority leader has said that he intends to use reconciliation, the most partisan process for considering tax reform. so when we were talking about health care, that's one-sixth of the economy, we have the same process, reconciliation, and now we are talking about taxes that involves the whole economy and we're seeing the senate majority leader say that once again it is his intent, his preference, his plan to use that same process. so i sure wish that the world was like my colleague has called for because i've written a bipartisan plan. and what's so striking is what the senate majority leader has called for is 20 hours of discussion, which is essentially what you get with

reconciliation, as opposed to what happened when ronald reagan and a big group of democrats got together in 1986 and spent a whole month on tax reform. before my colleague, and it is a pleasure to serve with him on the senate select committee on intelligence as well, i sure wish the world was along the lines of what my colleague has called for and perhaps he can use his intellect to persuade the senate majority to use that on taxes because that's what senate democrats have called for and i can tell my friend, given my interest in the sub subject, -- subject, which goes back well over a decade, we have something cowritten by a member of the senate's cabinet. i would very much like to have what my friend and colleague has talked about. i rise to oppose the nomination of mr. hargan for the number two

position at h.h.s. with secretary price's departure, mr. hargan would fill in to the top spot if he is concerned. i come to express -- my concern is that i just don't have any confidence that mr. hargan is going to lead the department in a different direction than it took under dr. price. last week the country watched as more and more details emerged about secretary price's travel, the flights, in my view, were an abuse of his office, but in my view there was from the very outset a reasonable to be concerned about secretary price and how he handles -- how he handled the public trust. ever since our committee received the price nomination, it was clear that he had a

little trouble flouting the rules when it served his own personal interest rather than taxpayers. he used insider information from a fellow congressman to get a sweetheart stock deal that made him hundreds of thousands of dollars. he frequently bought stocks in industries he was overseeing as a member of congress and he pushed health care legislation that benefited industry insiders rather than patients. so he was confirmed on a party line, you know, vote, and it wasn't very shortly after that where he really proceeded to go forward with what i and others consider a sabotage campaign that, in effect, has been executed since day one. he was a top salesman for trumpcare. he came before our committee and made countless other appearances

at which he willfully misrepresented the massive scare and -- scale and harm that trumpcare would have done to national health care. he also appeared on national television and argued, in effect, that health care funding cuts aren't actually cuts. he denied that individuals would lose health coverage or seek cost increase as a result of trumpcare even after there were independent analysis showing that that was wrong. and then, of course, he flew about the country scaring folks who just wanted affordable health care. and as far as the president's promise to bring down the high prices of prescription medicine -- madam president, that was a promise that the american people got stop after stop after stop on the campaign trail in 2016, that promise is

nowhere to be seen at this point. it is my hope that the president's next pick to lead health and human services is going to follow through on what the american people were told they were going to get in the campaign, which was to lower the costs of health care and get our citizens covered, but that nominee hadn't been put forward. in the meantime, mr. hargan's nomination has been in line to serve as acting secretary. i will tell you having examined the record as closely as i could, i don't believe there's any reason that mr. hargan would deviate from secretary price's ideological agenda that included a constant effort to undermine and, in my view, sabotage the implementation of the affordable care act. this campaign, in my view, is driving up premiums and

confusing americans who just want to be able to see a doctor and get affordable health care services. so i'm going to kick through some of the actions the administration has taken that would undermined the upcoming enrollment period and the effect that will have on our people's health care costs. first, just a few weeks into his tenure, secretary price cut the enrollment period. this is the period when americans sign up for health insurance. we're talking about a private marketplace, madam president. i'm really struck by this debate about the roll of government -- role of government. we're talking about a private marketplace where private health care plans offer coverage and the secretary, secretary price, cut the enrollment period for private health care at the private marketplace in half. people across the country used to be able to sign up for health

care from the beginning of november to the end of january and now they have literally half the time. that is going to cause a whole lot of disruption for people who are just working hard and living their lives rather than trying to follow every little press account from washington, d.c. so let's just imagine for a moment a 29-year-old who just got locked out of the health care system because he's had a three-year routine of signing up for health insurance around the new year. that's exactly the kind of individual that the private insurance market needs to attract in order to hold costs down. a young person who's probably signing up right towards the deadline. and then think of the single mom with two kids who marked january 30 probably with a big bright pen on her calendar because she

cut it close at the end of enrollment last year. her life is busy enough. she doesn't read trade publications from health industry sources to see what's happening with open enrollment. because of the early enrollment cutoff, now her family, this mom who just wants affordable private health care from the private marketplace is going to be locked out. the health and human services department is taking the healthcare.gov website offline for maintenance on all but one sunday during the open enrollment period. and the fact is, sunday has been one of the most popular times for well meaning assistance groups to help folks get signed up at community centers. it's like a state department transportation blocking the highways and digging up the blacktop with construction crews every monday morning during the

peak commute time. it's just the opposite of common sense, mr. president. the department is kneecapping the programs that are designed to get highly trained people -- these are folks called navigators, and what they do is get out into the communities and go to various places where they know a lot of folks aren't signed up and they help them get signed up. the department of health and human services has slashed the budget for getting the word out including zeroing out the budget for tv ads. and that was a big factor in getting enrollment up in the past. so let's be clear about what the department has done under secretary price's leadership. they've been working overtime to make it harder for people to get health care, plain and simple. the sabotage doesn't really end with just making enrollment a

headache. the administration continues to dangle the threat of cutting off cost-sharing payments as if it was a political game without consequences in the real world. in state after state after state, insurers have made it clear that this gamesmanship is causing premiums to go up. if the payments are cut off, families will face premium increases of hundreds of dollars or more, and it's all because they're searching for a political trophy. so again, mr. president, i want to talk about what this means for private sector health care. when you have the president and the previous secretary of health and human services pouring gasoline on the fires of uncertainty in the private health insurance marketplace, it makes it very hard for insurers

to make the calculations that are involved in spreading risk and getting people signed up and pricing products. and the reality is an administration that says they really care about the private sector and the president continually says that he's from the business community, wants to be sensitive to private sector economic forces, the last thing you would do is pour all this uncertainty into the private health care landscape which is what they have been doing with the gamesmanship in terms of whether or not they were going toll pay these cost-sharing payments so folks who face big deductibles and extra prices for medicine and the like, that they knew that there was going to be some help in their health plan for those costs. so the secretary was out jetting

all about spreading falsehoods about the private health care landscape. sometimes he would say it would be collapsing, and i'd say, well, we know a lot of people who are trying to stabilize it but you're making it harder by, as i say, pouring all this gas on the fire -- fires of uncertainty, while this was going orks they were also neglect -- going on, they were also neglecting to work with states. for example, oklahoma designed a reinsurance system to control costs and they sought a waiver application to the department of health and human services. but the department of health and human services didn't get around to improving it in time to help oklahomans in 2018. so the state just pulled their applications. and i have been a strong supporter of these waivers. i authored the provision in the

affordable care act, the innovation waiver, 1332. and for the secretary to not work with oklahoma in a timely way, in a way that would stabilize the private insurance market, it's not what those of us on this side are in favor of. there's no reason to believe mr. hargan will come in and clean up the mess. many states, in my view, want to see stable or reduced premiums this coming year, but so far the department is just marching in lockstep with the status quo and the president has just committed to continuing this kind of mismanagement and willful wrongdoing. mr. hargan has made it clear what his stance is on the affordable care act in plenty of public statements. so beyond this question of undermining the affordable care act, we were also particularly

troubled that the secretary, tom price, shared the trump administration's abysmal record of responding to oversight letters from congress, especially democrats but as far as i can tell, some of this is shared on both sides. i think this is profoundly undemocratic and our obligation to perform oversight as members of congress is derived from the powers laid out in the constitution, in article 1. and the issues we raise in oversight inquiries to the department of health and human services relate directly to the well-being of people in north carolina and oregon and everywhere in between. and i don't think senators on either side, democrats or republicans, do it for sport. but the administration's behavior is not that of a government but sees itself as

answerable to the public. either that or just doesn't have good answers to why it just constantly, constantly is out there undermining private health insurance markets and making it harder for people to get affordable health care. either way, they aren't doing their jobs and they aren't putting the interests of the american people first. so members on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern about this department, the health and human services department stonewalling important oversight issues presented by members on both sides. chairman hatch and senator grassley, two very senior republicans, chairman grassley, chairman hatch, they deserve a lot of credit for calling out the trump administration on this lack of responsiveness to basic oversight. but the fact is, what our

committee has heard is basically a lot of sweet talk from nominees about how of course they're going to be responsive and then they go out and it's business as usual and we see them for that confirmation hearing and not much of any kind of response when we ask questions. so i will not support mr. hargan's nomination today under tom price and this administration, the department of health and human services has done, in my view, a miserable job of working to improve the health and well-being of the american people and the irony is it seems that one of the objectives from day one was to set out and try to accomplish that, to make it appear that there were problems when the affordable care act was being implemented and instead of rolling up your sleeves and

tackling it, the idea was to try and get an ideological trophy. let's tell the american people that everything is horrible about the affordable care act so we can get it repealed. mr. president, as i've said, the affordable care act is far from perfect and in fact when we were debating it, i had an alternative plan. we had seven senators on both sides of the aisle so it's a bipartisan plan. but that's history. the affordable care act has made an enormous difference for millions of americans. and what we ought to be doing is working together to improve it. and there are plenty of ways in which this senate and an administration that really wants to accomplish that can work together in a bipartisan way. what i have been more interested in than any other aspect of public service was to work in a

bipartisan way on health care. that's been my number one interest. so nothing would please me more than to be able to say, okay, we've got an official who's going to break with the past and instead of trying to make the implementation of the act as bad as possible was prepared to roll up his or her sleeves and make it as good as possible. unfortunately that person is not mr. hargan. i urge a no vote. i yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you. we consider the nomination of randal quarles to be a member of the federal reserve system. he was a managing director most recent any the carlisle group and then founded cynosure group. i appreciate his willingness to serve the public once again, but i don't think he is the person we want in this important role at the federal reserve. the financial crisis devastated communities in my state and across the country, devastated in terms of lost jobs, foreclosed homes, evaporated savings. we made a lot of progress in the seven years since we passed wall street reform. the vice chair of supervision at the federal reserve is a

position created in dodd-frank is supposed to look out for our financial system, make sure that our financial system is sound. mr. quarles served as treasury's undersecond for domestic finance in the years leading up to the crisis. it was his job to coordinate oversight of the financial industry. many of his statements, however, leading up to the crisis were far too credulous. he seemed to believe whatever the banks were telling him. they were far too credulous when it came to industry claims that we simply need not worker the economy was in -- need not worry, the economy was in good shape. while at the treasury department, mr. quarles espoused the following view. it is a long quote. i will give it to you. markets are always ahead of the regulators. frankly, that's how it should be. it's analogous to the advice my father provided me. if you don't miss at least two or three planes a year, you're

spending too much time in airports. if the regulators aren't a little behind the market in a few at any given time, they would be stifling innovation and evolution. the regulators' task is to promote investor protection while ensuring that prudential and supervisory activities do not stifle efficiency gains. for effective regulation, the regulators must work with the markets. i am a not sure where to starred start there on picking that apart, more importantly in showing that someone that says that simply shouldn't be in charge of financial regulations at the federal reserve. i said at his nomination hearing, that's probably the most unfortunate use of language ever made, and i do not stand behind that statement that's what he said. he made other similarly unfortunate statements in the years leading up to the financial crisis. in 2006 he was under secretary for domestic finance. he discussed the prospectives of

foreign intending financial crisis. this was before things looked really bad. how would our current financial system stand up to this sort of canonical crisis? on the whole, i would is a i that the u.s. economy is well-positioned to weather such a retrenchment in risk-taking. this was about a year and a half before the economy just began to implode. he was in a high position with -- in the treasury department and he had access to all the information he might possibly want he said the economy is well-positioned to weather such a retrenchment. the same speech as the potential harm posed by increases in mortgage payments, he said, we well, that's certainly large number. it represents only a small hit to aggregate personal finances -- to aggregate personal income. moreover, market reports indicate that borrowers using such nontraditional mortgages tend to be upper-income individuals who can