crystal-clear in its protection of journalists who cover public officials. the standard for libel as well established. it is not subject to the whims of the politics on any given day. while those same supreme court kneeled for such denied, he cannot agree on much. i questioned him on this plan and he agreed that the president is clear on first amendment protections for journalists. the american people deserve the truth and we rely on journalists to keep digging for it. that's something to celebrate, not to undermine. standing up for the freedoms even when it's fundamental as the freedom of the press isn't always easy but it is vitally important. the future of our democracy depends on the ability of journalists to do our jobs. we must uphold this freedom every single day. so with all of this in mind mister president, i think. >> we believe these comments from earlier to return to

live coverage and debate here on c-span2.

a senator: mr. chairman? the presiding officer: the senator from california. a senator: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. mrs. feinstein: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, you and i have been on the intelligence committee for a considerable period of time. i much longer than you. however, i think we're both well experienced with the subject.

i would like to make a few comments on section 702. for six years i was chairman of the committee, ranking for two. and what i came to see is that in my view there was no more significant content collection program than section 702. and i want to give a couple of examples and why i think it's so important that 702 be reauthorized. a little more than a year ago on december 31 of last year, approximately 500 people gathered at a popular turkish nightclub on the banks to celebrate new year's eve. tragically, shortly after midnight, a gunman entered that club and opened fire killing 39 innocent civilians and wounding 69 others. at least 16 of those killed were

foreign nationals, including an american who was shot in the hip. many people inside reportedly jumped into the water in an attempt to protect themselves from the gunfire. after committing this act, the gunman changed clothes and fled the scene. almost immediately, turkish law enforcement and american intelligence officials began cooperation to identify and locate the shooter. part of that effort included intelligence collection under section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. information derived from 702 selection ultimately led police to an apartment in the district neighborhood of istanbul. there law enforcement arrested a national at a friend's apartment along with firearms, ammunition,

drones, and over $200,000 in cash. thanks to the work of turkish and american law enforcement and intelligence agencies, just 16 days after the horrific attack, police had the prime suspect in custody. mr. musharraf is currently awaiting trial in turkey. section 702 of fisa is the most important foreign content collection program that we have. it allows the government to quickly and efficiently collect phone call and mail content from non-u.s. persons located outside of the united states. information collected under section 702 informs every component of our nation's national security and foreign policy. section 702 was used by the c.i.a. to alert a partner nation

to the presence of an al qaeda operative who was turning into a cooperating source. section 702 was used to intercept al qaeda communications about a united states person seeking instructions on how to make explosives in the united states. and it was used to understand proliferation networks used by adversary nations to evade sanctions, including military communications equipment. in 2014, the privacy and civil liberties oversight board, what we call pclob, reported and i quote, over a quarter of n.s.a. reports concerning international terrorism include information based in whole or in part on section 702 collection. and this percentage has increased every year since the statute was enacted.

the law expressly prohibits the target of u.s. persons or the targeting of persons located in the united states. 702 is a foreign content collection program. i also believe it's equally important that reauthorization include reforms to ensure the program continues to operate consistently with the statute's original intent and our constitution. perhaps the most important among these reforms is the issue of u.s. person queries. u.s. person queries refer to the process by which the government searches the 702 databases for the content of u.s. persons communications. u.s. persons cannot be targeted understand 702 -- under 702 but they can be collected

incidentally if the individual is communicating with a non-u.s. person located overseas that is targeted under section 702. if an american's communications are collected incidentally, they are added to the 702 database. the government can later search or query that database for any american and gain access to the contents of any phone calls or e-mails that may have been swept up in the section 702 collection. each of these queries results in the government accessing the contents of a u.s. persons communications without ever going before a judge or securing a warrant. the fourth amendment requires the government to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before accessing those communications. and the supreme court has been clear. americans have a right to

privacy in the content of their phone calls and e-mails. the same standard should apply to communications incidentally collected under section 702. during the senate intelligence committee's markup of section 702, i offered an amendment with my colleague from california, senator harris, that would require the government to obtain a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance court prior to accessing the content of any u.s. person's communications collected under section 702. unfortunately, our amendment did not succeed in the committee. i have also filed our warrant requirement as a floor amendment to the bill currently under consideration. this amendment has been cosponsored again by senator harris as well as senators leahy and lee.

and i really do believe that a warrant requirement is eventually important as people become more concerned with the need to reform some of these long-standing provisions. the house-passed bill currently before us has a number of positive reforms. first, it does have limited warrant authority that would require the f.b.i. to obtain a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance court prior to accessing the contents of the united states persons' communications associated with a query that was not related to important intelligence or national security. the warrant provision in this bill is not as strong as the one i offered in committee, but it was the result of bipartisan compromise in the house. and i do believe it is a step in the right direction.

the house bill also includes other important reforms. it establishes a required congressional review process before the government is permitted to restart a collection. it requires the d.n.i. to declassify minimization procedures. it provides greater flexibility to the privacy and civil liberties oversight board to meet and hire staff. and it directs the inspector general to assess the f.b.i.'s section 702 practices so that we can continue, mr. president, to provide oversight of that program. in conclusion, mr. president, section 702 by its numbers and by its cover is our nation's most important foreign content collection authority. i would like to see more reforms to this program and perhaps something -- that's something

that those of us in the intelligence committee can strive for, but i believe this is the best that we're going to do at this time. and i look forward to supporting its passage. i thank the chair. i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is indeed in a quorum call. mr. cornyn: i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, last week the house voted to reauthorize for a period of six

years section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, a vital tool in tracking foreign terrorists abroad. and yesterday we had a very important vote, last night actually, a cloture vote in this chamber which allowed us to proceed to a final vote on this legislation perhaps as early as tomorrow morning. congress enacted section 702 in 2008 in direct response to the enduring threats that our country posed -- threats to the country posed by radical islamic extremism and the ever expanding use of the internet and social media by terrorists and foreign operatives. the law authorizes the attorney general of the united states and the director of national intelligence to conduct surveillance on foreigners who are outside of the united states so that the u.s. government can

effectively acquire that intelligence information. as the director of national intelligence and many others have stated, former f.b.i. director james comey is another one, section 702 is the crown jewels of our foreign intelligence collection and a critical weapon in the defense of our nation. the law expires this friday. that's right, just two days from now. so the clock is ticking. that's why i'm glad the senate took the first step in the right direction last evening and i trust my colleagues will soon make sure that the law is reauthorized so that the u.s. government can continue to collect information that's vital to the protection of the nation. because the law requires targets of section 702 to be foreign citizens to the -- outside the united states, those targets are not covered by the fourth amendment of the united states

constitution. clearly, people who are inside the country, american citizens, are all protected by the fourth amendment but not foreigners under supreme court precedence. and because of that, the government isn't required to obtain a warrant before initiating surveillance. but that's where the misconceptions and confusions start to rise and i want to talk a little bit more about that. despite the strong bipartisan vote in the house of representatives last week and the strong bipartisan support for the provision here in the senate, some critics want to delay reauthorization and engage in a never ending lamentation about the demise of the fourth amendment. the fourth amendment, of course, is the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. again, that applies to american citizens, not to foreigners abroad. but these critics have

mischaracterred the aim -- mischaracterized the aim of the many democratic and republican proponents of this law and frankly their concerns are misplaced. they ignore the enduring value and core protections in section 702 and the merits of various proprivacy reforms in the house bill. and as i said, it is truly a bipartisan bill. critics have expressed three concerns, and i want to address each in turn. the first is that under 702, that millions of bits of information are collected on americans. not just foreigners. and we don't know the exact amount. that's more or less a quote from one of those critics. what they're referring to of course is what the intelligence community calls incidental collection. when intelligence officials monitor the communication of foreign terrorists and the information of any american who's in communication with those terrorists sometimes gets

included in the mix. but of course if even an american is talking to a foreign terrorist, certainly the intelligence community would want to know that. but there are additional protections for u.s. persons who are incidentally collected based on a target of a foreign national. all this would be a legitimate worry were it not for the fact that there are safeguards built into the statute that ensure that no more american communications are collected than is necessarily to safely monitor foreigners with suspected terrorist ties. for example, section 702 already explicitly prohibits the u.s. government from intentionally targeting a foreign person if the real purpose is to target a particular known person in the united states. that's illegal. there are also so-called minimization procedures that limit the dissemination and use of the information required, and

scrupulous practices at our intelligence agencies -- the n.s.a., the c.i.a., and the f.b.i. -- on how that information is dealt with in order to protect u.s. persons. under the bill, several additional features should be acknowledged. of course the foreign intelligence surveillance court must review the f.b.i.'s so call querying procedures and certify that they are consistent with the fourth amendment. i know of no government program that has as much oversight and protection for the privacy rights of american citizens as the foreign intelligence surveillance act. it's actually supervised by all three branches of government. by the executive branch internally, by the judicial branch through the foreign intelligence surveillance court and other courts who decided that there is no constitutional violation in any of the

procedures laid down in the foreign intelligence surveillance act. and of course the oversight that we conduct here in the senate and in the house on the senate and the house intelligence committees. but to protect, to make sure that all of this is scrupulously adhered to, a record must be kept of each u.s. person query term used and far from ignoring americans' privacy concerns related to incidental collection, the bill requires that the intelligence community hire and employ civil liberties officers, people whose explicit job is to look out for our privacy rights. in sum, those who would misleadingly paint the intelligence community as renegade as deliberately surveilling millions of americans with no checks in place is simply wrong about the facts of this bill and the protections, the layered

protections that have been put in place. let me reiterate, the intelligence community is expressly prevented from targeting americans under section 702. directly or incidentally. in fact, the only americans who might be worried about their communications being swept up under section 702 are those who are deliberately communicationing with foreign terrorists. but all americans will benefit from a host of additional protections under the law. the critics' second and related concern is that incidental collection could be used in domestic criminal prosecutions. in other words, their concern is that the u.s. government could collect information without ever having to obtain a warrant and then use it to investigate and punish americans for crimes. again, this fear is misplaced under this bill. it's mitigated by analysis done by the privacy and civil

liberties oversight board in 2014 who after a comprehensive review found no evidence of intentional abuse. concerns of the critics are also mitigated by the f.b.i. which under this bill has to obtain a court order before it can access the contents of 702 communications in support of a purely criminal investigation as opposed to an intelligence gathering visitor. and it's mitigated by the fact that section 702 intelligence could be used as evidence against americans only in instances of the most serious crimes. apart from obtaining a court order it can only be used if the attorney general determines that the criminal proceeding involves national security or other heinous crimes like murder, kidnapping, or crimes against children. the critics preferred approach, and they introduced bills to this effect last year, would

prohibit the government from using any 702 collection to investigate these dangerous violent crimes. and, therefore, it would potentially protect dangerous criminals engaged in some of the most egregious behavior imaginable, something that i would think we would not want to do. that brings us to the skeptics' third problem which deals with oversight. they fear that the reauthorization of this legislation could spell the end of congressional monitoring of the program that chastise this possibility as one that is in callous disregard for our cherished bill of rights. well, they're entirely correct to insist, in light of recent events, that congress should continue to engage in rigorous oversight of the intelligence community and make sure that our surveillance tools aren't used for political ends. but we already have oversight in spades, and under this bill we have even more.

first of all, the house bill authorizes a program for only six years, not indefinitely. so at the end of 2023, we will revisit section 702. and in the meantime, existing and extensive oversight of section 702 will continue. as i mentioned, for example, there is judicial review. the foreign intelligence surveillance court annually reviews section 702 and other courts have examined the use of section 702 in support of criminal cases. all agree that section 702 does not violate the fourth amendment to the united states constitution. even the ninth circuit, which is frequently out of line with other circuit courts and the supreme court, agrees that section 702 is constitutional. courts are of course aren't the only oversight mechanism. there are ones within the executive branch which i alluded to earlier including routine

reviews by the department of justice in the office of the director of national intelligence. and of course congressional committees like the senate intelligence committee and the judiciary committee, both of which i serve on, also receives regular reporting on the 702 program and holds open and closed hearings on the subject. ultimately the approaches that are preferred by the 702 critics would force the f.b.i. to rebuild the wall between criminal and national security investigations that existed before the attacks on new york on 9/11 and would cause the f.b.i. to stovepipe its section 702 collection contrary to the recommendations of numerous commissions, including the 9/11 commission and the fort hood commission. we need to remember that the f.b.i. protects our national security both as an intelligence agency and as a law enforcement

agency. in other words, it wears two hats. so we can't wall off the f.b.i. from the content of crucial communications and we can't wall off the f.b.i. from intelligence agencies like the national security agency and the central intelligence agency. that was a situation for the f.b.i. leading up to september 11, 2001. and we can't forget the increasingly dangerous world we're living in, the diverse array of threats that confront us. f.b.i. director chris ray has summarized our new threat landscape. it's one that includes not only large mass casualty events like 9/11 here in the united states and similar more recent attacks in europe, but also more isolated and diffuse lone wolf and homegrown violent extremist threats that give law enforcement and national security investigators much less

time to detect and disrupt. imposing additional obstacles to accessing this critical information could either delay us when time is of the essence or worse, prevent us from being able to connect the dots of information that the u.s. government has already lawfully collected. real-world examples show how devastating this could be. a tip under 702 from the n.s.a., the national security agency, is what helped the f.b.i. stop an attack on the new york city subway system in 2009. there's also haji iman who at one point was second in command in isis. 702 helped us get him and take him off the battlefield. and then there's isis recruiter sean parson. 702 revealed his terrorist propaganda and identified members of his terrorist network. and there are many, many more examples of instances where 702

helped us identify, disrupt, and prevent attacks against the homeland here in the united states and innocent civilians. whether it's combatting terrorism, detecting and countering cyber threats, uncovering support for hostile powers, or acquiring intelligence on foreign adversary military, 702 is one of our most effective tools, and we simply can't afford to blunt the sharpness of its blade or dull the focus of its lens. in closing, i want to make one point, one final point clear. i agree that in the words of one critic, the fourth amendment is not a suggestion. it's a core constitutional protection of our sacred freedom. but reauthorizing section 702 would not seldom relegate the fourth amendment to second tier status. every court that's considered

the matter has said so. and frankly, it's obscene to ignore the balance of proprivacy reforms in the house-passed bill that will provide even greater protections for fourth amendment rights of americans. the truth of the matter is that section 702 has never been systemically abused. it has helped stop terrorist attacks at home and abroad and helped defend our troops in the battlefield. it's been critical to the russian collusion probe and other counter intelligence work. and as i said, every court, every single court that's considered the program has found it to be lawful and constitutional. in other words, consistent with the fourth amendment in the u.s. bill of rights. so we can all rattle the saber of civil liberties to score political points, but large misguided changes to 702 are not

the way to go. the house-passed bill will provide greater transparence and procedural protections for fourth amendment rights of innocent law-abiding americans while at the same time allow us to remain vigilant in protecting the homeland and our troops abroad and our national security at large by making sure we have the information we need in order to connect the dots for the threats to our national security. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. a senator: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is indeed in a quorum call. mr. thune: i would ask the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, tax reform has been the law of the land for less than a month but it's already fostering a new era of economic optimism. and american workers are seeing the benefits. for years, american businesses large and small were weighed down by high tax rates and growth-killing provisions in the tax code. plus, our outdated international tax rules left america's global businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the global economy. the tax cuts and jobs act changed all that. we lowered tax rates across the board for owners of small and medium-sized businesses, farms, and ranches. we expanded business owners' ability to recover investments they make in their businesses which will free up cash that

they can reinvest in their operations and their workers. we lowered our nation's massive corporate tax rate which up until january 1 was the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. and we brought the u.s. international tax system into the 21st century by replacing our outdated worldwide system with what's called a territorial tax system so that american businesses are not operating at a disadvantage next to their foreign competitors. mr. president, despite the fact that the new law has been in place for less than a month, it's already having a noticeable effect. businesses are seeing a future defined by growth and success, and they're already passing some of the expected benefits on to their workers. business after business has announced special bonuses, wage hikes, or benefit increases.

at&t, bank of america, comcast, american airlines, southwest, visa, nationwide insurance, jet blue, and the list, mr. president, goes on and on. in addition to giving out bonuses to eligible employees, walmart is raising its starting wage for hourly employees, expanding maternity and parental leave benefit, and creating a new adoption benefit for employees. more than one million walmart employees will benefit from the changes. affleck is boosting retirement benefits for its workers by increasing the size of its 401(k) match from 50% to 100% on the first 4% of employee's contributions. it's also announced a one-time $500 contribution to the retirement account of every employee.

pnc is giving a $1,000 bonus to 90% of its employees and adding $1,500 to employees' pension accounts. it's also boosting its minimum pay. similarly, great western bank which is headquartered in my state of south dakota, is raising its minimum wage to $15 an hour and providing a $500 bonus or wage increase for nearly 70% of its workforce. the bank is also enhancing its employer -- i should say its employee health care program and doubling its annual contribution to its making life great grant community reinvestment program. mr. president, i could go on. but the good news is not limited to increased wages, bonuses, and benefits, as important as that is, particularly to people who are living paycheck to paycheck. but companies are also acting to keep jobs and to create new ones. fiat-chrysler just announced it

will be adding 2,500 jobs at a michigan factory to produce pickups that it's been making in mexico. in october cvs health announced that it would create 3,000 new jobs if the corporate tax rate was reduced. and in my own backyard, fiberglass is keeping its doors open longer than expected which is good news for its employees and the entire community of aberdeen, south dakota. then there are the utility companies. utilities from around the country are benefiting from tax reform and more than one is looking to pass on savings to consumers. bloomberg reports that and i quote, exelon corp., the biggest u.s. utility owner by sales is already offering to reduce bills, end quote. in illinois comed is requesting permission to, and i quote, pass along approximately $200 million in tax savings to its customers

in 2018. end quote. and in washington, d.c., pepco has announced plans to pass on savings to customers gig in the first quarter of this year. mr. president, all these benefits are going to make a real difference in families' lives this year and in some cases well into the future. and the main benefits of tax reform are still to come. the i.r.s. just released the new with holding tables for the tax law and americans should start seeing the results in february. thanks to lower income tax rates, the doubling of the standard deduction, and the doubling of the child tax credit, 90% of american workers, 90% should see bigger paychecks starting next month. and that's just the beginning. one major goal of tax reform was to provide immediate direct relief to hardworking americans, and that's happening right now.

but our other goal, mr. president, was to create the kind of robust, long-term economic growth that would provide long-term security for american families. that's already starting with the wave of bonuses and wage increases but there is a lot more to come. as businesses large and small experience tax reform, american workers will see the benefits of tax reform. american workers will see increased access to the kinds of jobs, wages, and opportunities that will secure the american dream for the long term. it's a good day in america, mr. president, and it is going to get even better. mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gardner: mr. president, when

we were kids, we learned a song that i think herman hermits made very famous around 1965. it was the henry the 8th i am song and it went on for a while about henry 8:00 and it had -- henry the eighth. there was a phrase. henry the eighth i am. the second verse same as the first and they would repeat themselves. second verse the same as the first and they would keep going. today we find ourselves kind of stuck in that second verse same as the first when it comes to the veterans affairs department and how they have treated veterans in colorado. i rise once again to address troubling reports coming out of the veterans administration. it's now been over three years since the phoenix v.a. catastrophe. we all remember the phoenix v.a. catastrophe where secret wait lists led to the deaths of veterans. at that time the v.a. pledged that this problem would be fixed. but here we are, second verse same as the first. they said it would never happen again. well, saddens me today that in

denver, colorado, that promise has been broken. following the phoenix disaster, this body passed the veterans access choice and accountabilitiability, also known as the v.a. choice act to expand access for veterans to community veteran providers. no doubt it has been successful in different parts of the country. but the denver v.a. system continues to post inexcusable wait times, experience a shortage of doctors and nurses and use secret wait lists. it's simply unacceptable. the average wait time for a new patient at the denver v.a. for a primary care appointment has topped 42 days. this leads the neighbors in an unfortunate category and is twice the national average. our veterans deserve better. and to many who have been affected by this travesty, they demand better. last week nbc nightly news told the story of one colorado veteran allison bush. allison served in the army for seven years and suffers from a nerve disorder. with such a disorder, she cannot afford delayed appointments. yet allison was forced to wait

over three months for a primary care appointment and another 60 days for an mir -- m.r.i. there's no excuse for this, particularly given the work we have done and the promises the v.a. has made. allison like so many others answered the call of duty only to be let down after retiring the uniform. now, i recognize that colorado is witnessing an increase in demand with more than 11,000 veterans seeking care in the last two years. but this is no excuse. the v.a. must adapt in the face of adversity. we must change this repeat after repeat of the same verse. and we must never forget that this nation's number one priority is upholding the promises that we have made to our veterans. because of stories like ashley's, i recently introduced senate bill 2168, the veterans improved access and care act of 2017. my legislation would address three issues. hiring shortages, delayed wait times and malpractice reporting. a large driver of delayed wait times for veterans is the

shortage of doctors and nurses. the current system for hiring these medical professionals is too long and too burdensome. according to a mcqueen decide and company study in 2015, it took four to eight months to hire a v.a. employee. the onboarding process alone can take three months. according to the same study private medical facilities took less than two months to hire an applicant. think about that for a moment. just like in the v.a., a private applicant has to go through an interview process, credentials process, background check yet the v.a.'s onboarding process is longer than the private sector's entire hiring process. it makes absolutely no sense. my legislation would take steps to fix this problem. it would authorize the v.a. to establish a pilot program to expedite the liaring of doctors at -- hiring of doctors where there are facilities for specialists like nurses and anesthesiologists. it would require the secretary of the v.a. to submit a report to congress detailing a strategy to reduce the length of the v.a.'s hiring process by half. my bill would look to expand

access to our veterans. the choice program while well intentioned still contains arbitrary rules such as a 30-day waiting period before a veteran can seek access to providers. mr. president, 29 days is also unacceptable. my legislation would work to improve the choice act by eliminating the 30-day 40-mile eligibility rule giving veterans full access to medical care regardless of his or her situation. finally, my legislation will work to ensure that secret wait lists are forex extinguished -- are ex extinguished. the eastern colorado health care system used unofficial wait lists for veterans, estimating 3,775 veterans were affected. there needs to be accountability of this malpractice. my legislation would do that. it would expand requirements to

include all medical providers. our veterans have served our country. they have missed holidays with their families to protect our nation. they have suffered battlefield injuries. they have laid it all on the line for you, for me, and the presiding officer, a veteran of this great country. we should make sure they get the respect and horror -- honor they have rightly earned. we need to have greater access and care for all veterans. whether it's my legislation or any piece of legislation, something has to be done not tomorrow or next week, but now. the current system is not working. we must remain optimistic that we can deliver on the promises we gave to our men and women in uniform. i am optimistic, but we can't wait. time is a luxury our veterans do not have. mr. president, i ask that everyone in this body and especially the v.a. remember the

stories of those, especially like allison bush. may we never forget those who set aside their dreams so that others can obtain their dreams. now is the time to step up. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. alexander: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i thank the senator from colorado for his remarks. he reminded me of something that tom daschles once told us at a prayer breakfast. he said after world war ii, archiebald said of the veterans that came back from the war, when talking to the members of the senate, he said they gave us our country and now it's up to us to make sure they can do something with it. i think we need to remember that challenge and opportunity we

have. mr. president, some disappointing news arrived last month. the white house announced that the andrew jackson manage ethanolla is -- magnolia is sick and dying and had to be removed. the top section of the tree was removed. the other leader of the jackson magnolia is in tact but is supported by a cabling system. when president trump visited the hermitage last year and laid a wreath at jackson's tomb, he walked by seedlings that were from the jackson magnolia. the jackson magnolia has significance to tennesseans. prior to his arrival at the white house in 1829, jackson,

who was our fifth president, planted a magnolia in remembrance of his wife who had died weeks earlier. there were those who were so maligned about her marriage to jackson, she said i would rather be a doorkeeper to the house of god than live in that palace in washington, d.c. the seedling came from the couple's home outside of nashville. it reached the roof of the white house. take a look at the back of the $20, the one in your billfold or wallet or purse, with the jun with president -- the one with president jackson on the front and you will see the jackson

magnolia on the back. "the washington post" detailed some of the tree's history. the "post" said, long after jackson left office, his magnolia remained. other trees were planted to supplement it and the tree became a fixture in white house events. herbert hoover held meetings beneath it, franklin roosevelt spoke to churchill in the shade, richard nixon strode past it when he left the white house for the last time, in 1994 a maryland man piloting a solo plan clipped the tree before suffering a deadly crash. some say it may have david president bill clinton's life. no tree on the white house grounds can reveal so many secrets of romance and history.

long-time white house butler alonzo fields once told the press. the magnolia may be dying, but it's children and great children will live on. in 1998 president ronald reagan presented a cutting of the jackson magnolia to a former majority leader of this senate when reagan retired as his chief of staff. baker planted that at his home. six years later in 1994, baker was lunching at his home with john rice zyrwin. he had noticed the tree, which has grown to a height of 18 feet, he told the story of the jackson magnolia and with the help of the tennessee college of agriculture, arrangeled for two cuttings from baker's magnolia to be sent to

john rice erwin. then he presided at a museum opening, when those two cuttings, the grandchildren of the jackson magno lynch a were presented to the museum of appalachia. they are planted in front of the museum's hall of fame. in 1996 john rice erwin gave a cutting of his magnolia to my wife and me and we planted it in front of our home outside of merryville, tennessee. today it is 80 feet tall. in 1998, a hurricane destroyed the original magnolia at the white house. at the request of health and human -- hermatige.

it was presented by the descendant of john donaldson. senator baker and john rice erwin attended. according to the museum of appalachia, five cuttings have been successfully propagated from the museum magnolia in 2009, john rice gave a second cutting to me which is planted at our home in blunt county. we, in turn, have given cuttings to graham and cindy hunter in knoxville and denise and steve smith in franklin. their trees are growing tall in the tennessee soil from which the jackson magnolia came from 80 years ago. while we look back at the long life of the jackson magno lynch

a, -- magnolia we can look are forward to its children and grandchildren's growth. i ask to include the article from "the washington post" on december 26 describing the history of the jackson magnolia. i yield the floor. mr. scott: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i have one request for a committee to meet during today's session of the senate. it has the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. scott: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, the last three weeks have shown us the beginning of what happens when congress listens to the american people and delivers on our promises. for years we've been talking and talking and talking about real

lasting tax reform, helping american families bring more of their hard-earned money back home in their paychecks and ensuring that the jobs of the future are created here at home in america. last month we started reaching those goals. and just three weeks since we passed the tax reform more than two million americans have received bonuses in their paychecks and hundreds of thousands of employees have been informed that they will have permanent pay increases or increased benefits. right after christmas in my home state of south carolina, nefro n pharmaceuticals said that 600 employees will receive a minimum of a 5% raise.

this is good news, mr. president. and the raise is due to the passage of tax reform. in other words, two million americans all across the country, thousands and thousands of americans in south carolina are starting to see the fruit of tax reform. and this is just the beginning. in fact, all across the country more than 160 companies have already begun the steps of improving the lives of their employees by sharing -- sharing -- allowing them to share in the benefits of tax reform. this is counter to what we heard on the floor for days in, weeks in, and i would dare say for months when folks railed about how the corporations and the

companies and the employers of america simply would not share the benefits of lower taxes. i am thankful that i live in a country blessed to live in a state where our corporate family has obviously recognized the benefits, the wisdom of sharing the profits with their employees, and that number will rise. as a matter of fact, i think just today the apple corporation, home of the iphones said that instead of making the $1.5 billion investment that they had announced, that they would instead make a $300 billion investment here at home in america, creating 20,000

new american jobs. this, mr. president, is good news. and earlier this month, last week i believe it was, the i.r.s. announced that they had been able to change the withholdings and they have predicted -- and this is an astounding number -- that up to 90% of employees will see more take-home pay in their paychecks as early as february the 15th. you see, lower taxes, higher take-home pay translates into maybe a movie night out for a struggling family, maybe new tennis shoes for a youngster, and without any question, more money to do more good for

nonprofits, for churcheses and other organizations -- churches and other organizations. next year when they file their taxes, our efforts to double the child tax credit, our efforts to double the standard deduction will kick in and more families will see more money in their returns. and, frankly, mr. president, my investing and opportunity act that included in the tax reform will present new opportunities for perhaps billions of dollars to be reinvested in distressed communities like the one i grew up. yes, mr. president, more than 50 million americans live in these distressed communities, and because of the goodwill of this body, because of the goodwill of the house of representatives, and because of the goodwill of the current

administration, millions of americans will have more reasons to be hopeful in 2018. thi this is just the beginning of what a strong middle-clas middle-class-oriented business friendly tax code will do. i plan to spend more time on the floor of the senate over the next year talking about the benefits of tax reform, relaying the stories of who are starting to fill -- of employees who are starting to fill my mailbox with the stories of the things they're doing were their extra dollars. this is a good start to 201, and my -- to 2018, and my prayer is that this is just the beginning. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, i succeed that the -- i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i take this time to go over with my colleagues the reasons why i unequivocally oppose the trump administration's decision to allow oil and gas drilling along our atlantic coast. there's many reasons why i oppose this policy. one is the risk to the environment is too great. the atlantic coast contains some of the most pristine coastlines in america. the -- this region is very much aware of the importance of the chesapeake bay and how fragile the chesapeake bay is and what an oil spill off the coast of the atlantic could do to the chesapeake bay. there's also reasons to oppose this because, quite frankly, the amount of suspected reserves are just not great enough to warrant this risk. and then, mr. president, we also know that there is already significant lands that have been devoted and are available for

oil exploration that will meet our needs, and a lot of it has not even been explored yet because of the current economic realities. and then, lastly, when we're talking about an energy policy that makes sense for our country, exploring for new oil off of the coast of the atlantic makes no sense whatsoever. in november 2016, the bureau of ocean energy management wisely did not include any parcels in the atlantic outer continental shelf in the 2017 to 222 plan to -- to 2022 plan to lease offshore land. in the former month, former president obama used his authority in the outer continental lands act of 1953 to withdraw unleased outer continental shelf lands.

this makes sense. in june of 2017, the administration projected that the u.s. oil output will hit 10 million barrels per day in 2018, breaking the all-time 1970 record, all without drilling off the chesapeake bay. the previous record was 9.6 million barrels a day in 1970. so we -- so we are at record pace of bringing oil out of the ground, and yet we take a look at the amount of oil projected to be available off the atlantic coast, and it's a relatively small amount. when you recognize the risk, it's just not worth the risk to explore for that amount of oil with the potential of causing devastation to our environment. last march officials from the spanish oil company and its

privately held u.s. partner, are armstrong energy, announced the discovery of 1.2 billion barrels of oil in the alaskan north slope. that amount exceeds the projected reserves off the atlantic coast. production could begin as soon as 2021 and have as much as 120 million barrels of output every day. this is the biggest discovery of oil in the united states in decades. in addition to the massive onshore discovery, since fiscal 2016, the last year which data is available, 20% of the public lands that hold oil are under production. half the lands have yet to be produced. there is a glut of oil drilling

permits with 179 approved but not on the books. 2,184 drilling permits were approved but not used. they have a big backlog. as the which would wilderness society reported, leasing more lands than the industry could develop or interested in developing, allows companies to stockpile land while they wait for a more favorable market. but this stockpiling prevents the lands being used for hunting, fishing, hiking, and conservation while leaving them open to the risk of drilling. there is an atlantic outer continental site known as lease sale 220. it has been proposed for gas and oil development previously. lease sale 220 is located off

the shores of virginia. it is a 200 triangle -- -- shaped site. 72% of the time. coupled with the way that the gulf stream flows, if lease sale 220 is developed and there is an oil spill, the likelihood of oil washing up on the shores of new jersey and the outer banks is high. the mouth of the chesapeake bay is 50 miles away from the site. it is hard enough to deal with the existing pollutants from agriculture and development and storm run-off, add oil into the mix and it would set us back decades in trying to restart the oyster crops and help the rock fish return and thrive. we have spent a lot of energy

here in the united states congress with the chesapeake bay program as a federal partner. i remember my days in the state legislature where governor hughes provided the leadership for the chesapeake bay program. we worked with governments from six other states and the district of columbia, the federal government, private sector partners all so that we could preserve and reclaim the chesapeake bay, a national treasure, declared so by many presidents. we spent a lot of effort. we asked our farmers to do more, we asked our government to do more and now if we allow drilling off the atlantic coast, all of that effort could be put at risk. drilling off the coast of maryland would interfere with our naval atlantic test range, preventing our military from developing next-generation fighter aircraft, sensors and weapons to keep us safe. we have a large military

presence along the atlantic coast. adding insult to injury, or perhaps i should say heaping injury on top of injury, this move to open up the atlantic coast drilling came one week after president trump repealed safety regulations president obama implemented to prevent another deep deepwater horizon disaster. it failed creating the greatest accidental oil spill in history. 11 crewmen lost their lives. up to 4.9 million barrels of oil gushed from the broken well for three months, eventually fouling over 790 miles of gulf shoreline and killing thousands of birds and other marine life. the long-term effects of the oil spill and the 8.1 million gallons of disperents on it remains

unknown, but experts say it could devastate the gulf coast for many years. dolphins are continuing to die, corrals in the -- corals in the gulf have died. the oil could remain in the food change for decades to come. an oil spill in the chesapeake bay would be a similar disaster. whatever happened to interior secretary zinke's promise to be highly mindful of local input. floods of -- there were more than a half million comments. the list of opponents included more than 1,200 local, state, and federal officials, including the governors of maryland, delaware, virginia, new jersey, north carolina, south carolina, california, oregon, washington.

more than 150 coastal municipalities, an alliance of 140,000 businesses, and 500,000 business companies. they ignored the widespread opposition to expand offshore drilling and the time and effort the public dedicated to making their dissenting voices heard. it is reckless to jeopardize so much. the livelihood of those who depend on the fishing and tourism and fisheries and military readiness along the chesapeake bay when there is so much oil and gas in other parts of the country where producing is established and locally supported. my concerns are not limited to the chesapeake bay or maryland's beautiful coastline, those who -- although they are beautiful resources.

greenhouse gas emissions are a huge problem, yet the trump administration is determined to double down on burning fossil fuels when we need to diminish, not increasing our reliance on them. instead of promoting an energy policy for the 21st century, president trump is pushing policies from the 20th century. this is not just ill-advised, it is deadly. we have little time to use when it comes to cutting fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions. as "politico" reported, last year was the third hottest on record in 124 years of recordkeeping and the united states faced recordbreaking losses. a noaa study found that hurricanes and wildfires did $306 billion worth of damage to the u.s. economy, factoring in losses to business activity.

the most expensive storm in 2017 was hurricane harvey with an estimated $125 billion in costs, followed by hurricane irma at $50 billion. wildfires burned through 8.9 acres and costs dz 8.3 billion in damages. the united states in total saw 16 different events with losses exceeding $1 billion each in 2017, tying a record set in 2011 for the most billion-dollar disasters in a single year. noaa scientists found that the highest amounts occurred in 2006. for all of these reasons, i would urge president trump an interior secretary zinke to reverse course on this ill begotten plan. we need a permanent moratorium

on oil and gas drilling off our atlantic coast. the potential rewards of such drilling, problematic as they are, don't come close to equalizing the risk to the chesapeake bay and maryland's and our nation's irreplaceable -- irreplaceable shorelines and coastal communities. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. our constitution started out with three beautiful words, we the people. this was the whole mission statement for the development of our form of government. not a government that would deliver benefits by and for the

privileged, not a government that would deliver decisions for the rich and the powerful but for the people of the united states, for the best policy for the population of the united states. its citizens everywhere of ever stripe and every corner of the nation could have the opportunity to thrive. but in 2016, the leadership of this body dedicated themselves to the mission of government of, by, and for the powerful and the privileged. so i think it's work reviewing -- it's worth reviewing some of those items that we've gone through in the course of this past year. let's start by looking at the attack on the consumer financial protection bureau. my colleagues on the republican side spent a whole year

attacking this organization that was set up to make sure that financial advance actions are -- transactions are fair, a fair, square deal for ordinary americans. we'd seen all kinds of predatory practices in consumer loans. we'd seen all kinds of predatory practices in auto loans, and we certainly had seen them in home mortgages. in fact, the exploding interest rate mortgages and the triple-option mortgages that were designed to deceive and bankrupt ordinary americans turned the dream of homeownership into a nightmare. fortunately, back in 2010, this body said no more. we're going to set up an organization that can identify predatory practices as they develop and prevent them from being implemented. makes a lot of sense. very similar to an organization that we have in the government that says, that appliance is

dangerous and should never be sold; that toy is dangerous and should never be sold. in this case, it's that loan is predatory, deceptive and should never be marketed. but this assault on cfpb went throughout the year purely encapsulating government for the powerful and the rich and the predatory over ordinary people. and this is really -- and this has really culminated here at the end of the year in which president trump has ad pointed an acting director to the cfpb who hates the consumer financial protection bureau and wants to dismantle it from the inside. in fact, that director has called the organization a sick, sad joke. and just yesterday he threw out the payday loan rule. now, payday loans have interest rates of 300%, 400%, 500%

interest. people have them initially, borrow $1,000. in a year they owe $5,000. it is a vortex of debt that pulls families into bankruptcy, it squeezes them for as long as it can and then throws them out bankrupt. with many states have said -- well, many states have said this is outrageous. many religious traditions have said this is unacceptable. people have seen the carnage it does. and these aren't just high-interest loans of 25% no $300%, 400%, 500%. but yesterday the director of the organization set up to protect against predatory loans restored full power to allow these predatory loans to occur. that just symbolizes the whole

year of leadership in this body supporting the powerful and the privileged instead of the people of the united states of america. and just a little while ago we had a vote here in the body, a 50-50 vote and then the vote broken by the vice president, 51-50, that really does symbolize the powerful over the people. this was a case where there was a rule adopted by the consumer financial protection bureau that said, you have to have fairness in adjudicating consumer issues. let's say, h for example, a telephone company puts charges onto your bill that you didn't authorize. let's say, for example, a cable company proceeds to charge you a higher price than the contract called for and you want to dispute this. but currently if you seek to dispute it, you can't do snow a fair set -- you can't do so in a

fair setting. instead, it is a rigged system set up for the company and against the people, in which the company chooses the judge, in which the company pays the judge, in which the company promises future business to the judge. now, who here in this chamber really thinks that you get a fair decision when one party to a dispute chooses the judge, pays the judge, and promises the judge future business? that is the arbitration rule that was undone. this is the fair arbitration rule was undone by this body, choosing to weigh in this 2017 once again on the side of the powerful against ordinary people, choosing the system rigged against middle-class and ordinary americans. with let's turn to -- well, let's turn to yet another decision for the powerful in 2017 over the people th -- net

neutrality. you decide you have an idea and you want to set up a company. may be want to offer a website that provides services to people who need home repairs and you know you're going to be competing against big, powerful actors out there that have other websites. l but you decide, i have a different idea, a different innovation, a different way of doing this would be better. right now until recently you had the same ability to get the same speed on your pages on your website loading as the big player did so you could compete. but the republican majority, team trump, says no, we want to weigh in or the powerful over -- weigh in or the powerful over ordinary -- weigh in for the powerful over ordinary people. we want to stop the challengers, the little guy, the ordinary person who wants to compete from being able to have the same speed so that the customer can

only decide, well, i'd better go to the established big player. what could more symbolize the powerful over the people than the f.c.c. with the support of this administration, this trump team for the powerful, choosing to wipe out net neutrality? i think we'll have that issue revisited higher in 2018 -- here in 2018 when we have a congressional review act that already 50 senators in this body, 49 democrats, one republican, are said they are ready to sponsor the overturn of this act against ordinary people. so at least 50 out of 100 here are saying on this issue, they want to stand up for ordinary people against this 2017 reining of terror by the powerful and trilled against ordinary people. but we're going to need 51. isn't there one more senator who will stand up for ordinary people? and then we have the congressional review act attack

on planned parenthood. this was a case where the administration and this republican leadership and this republican-led body said, we want to enable jurisdictions to divert funds away from a woman's health organization, planned parenthood. and they centered their argument around diminishing the number much of abortions. but here's the fact u family planning decreases abortions. so it has the contrary impact of those who made that argument. here is another fact. 97 punish of the work of those argues is -- 97% of the work of those organizations is about preventive services. taking away screenings for all kind of cancers. here with you the privileged and the powerful choosing to weigh

in against the health of ordinary women across the united states. the list just goes on and on. let's turn to big, powerful mining bringing brought to bear against ordinary people. this is simply the chase of a rule which said, when you create a big mess with mountaintop removal mining, you have to fix that so it doesn't contaminate the stream. this was a rule in which people weighed in and said they want clean streams for the fish, where the ordinary people of america weighed in and said we want clean streams for fishing, where ordinary people weighed in and said we want clean streams for our water supply. but, no, this body saw fit to lay in for the rich and powerful, taking away those streams for the fish and the opportunity for fishing, taking away those clean streams for

water in favor of the rich and powerful over the interests of the people of the united states. and this rich and powerful over the people has extended even beyond our borders to abroad. equatorial guinea, a country of subsahara africa has a massive wealth of oil. the president of that country has been in power since 1979. that country has a per capita income of around -- i believe it is $20,000. but most of the nation lives on less than $2 a day. and why is that? why do ordinary people live on so little when the country has so much wealth? it's because the international oil companies have made their royalty payments to the leader of the country rather than to

the treasury of the company. well, congress came along and said, you know what? we need transparency in these international transactions so let ordinary people oversea -- so that ordinary people overseas are not ripped off through the hidden transactions of paying off lead whoars live extraordinary lives of luxury while people suffer. when i talk about suffering, who here can live on $2 a day? who here can do that? and it is a life and death issue. 20% of the children in equatorial guinea, a country with this vast wealth, die before the age of five while the president and his vice president, they own yachts worth $250 million. they have a $200 million mansion in paris. they have a $10 million car collection. while people are dying because

this chamber in 2017 chose to support the powerful over the ordinary people of the world. and we see this in another environmental issue, the issue of the arctic national wildlife refuge. we have protected that for decade after decade. a last great natural treasure, sacred tribal land home to polar bears and brown bears and arctic foxes and seals. in fact the ground where the caribou, the porcupine caribou come, a herd of 160,000 come to give birth. but we decided that that tribal land wasn't as important as a decision for the rich and powerful oil companies to be

able to destroy that pristine area. let's turn to one of the biggest issues of the powerful over the people in 2017 in which this body facilitated the theft of a supreme court seat in order to maintain the citizens united ruling that allows billionaires to flood our campaigns with cash in order to control this body. one of the most evident sources of corruption in the history of this country. finally, we had an opening for the supreme court in 2016, an opening that might have redressed this we the powerful decision over we the people. and this body came forward and the leadership said, we're not going to allow a debate on president obama's nominee. we're not going to allow a vote.

and justified it because it was an election year. and yet if you look through history, there's nothing in our history that supports that. 15 times before we've had an opening on the supreme court during an election year. 15 times before. we have debated. 15 times before we have voted. and then again it was dressed up as maybe this is protecting the constitution but, of course, the constitution doesn't absolve us of our advice and consent responsibilities in the fourth year of a presidency or the eighth year of a presidency. and that seat, the consummation of that theft was completed when this body voted to confirm the nomination of neil gorsuch last april. basically an incredible act of

irresponsibility, a failure to honor our advice and consent responsibility, an act which denigrated the legitimacy of the supreme court, and certainly diminished the reputation of the senate in honoring our pledge to honor the constitutional -- including the constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent, all in order to keep billionaires' money in campaigns throughout this country. if that isn't the powerful over the people in 2017, what is? but that's not the end of it. 2017, the republican leadership of this body brought us five different efforts to wipe out health care for 20 million to 30 million people, 20 million to 30 million people. i didn't hear the senators supporting this saying they wanted to give up health care for themselves. oh, no. they wanted to keep that. but they were very comfortable advocating for a bill to wipe out health care for 20 million

to 30 million americans. there you have it. the powerful against the people. then we have the tax heist, the most recent powerful over the people. add up the provisions for the wealthy. now, remember, this was advertised, this tax bill was advertised as a middle-class tax cut. for the middle class. what did we have? we had the provision to eliminate the dynasty loophole which allows the richest americans to pass on their dynasties without paying capital gains at a cost of $83 billion. we had change in the tax brackets for the wealthiest of americans, hundreds of becomes of dollars. we had eliminating the all tern tif minimum -- alternative minimum tax, $40 billion or so for the wealthiest americans. we had the reducing of corporate

taxes, the benefits of which go to the stockholders, the richest americans. we had the sweetheart rate for pass-through corporations, the bulk value of that helping out the richest americans. add it up one after another after another provision, all told probably about $2 trillion given to the richest americans by the so-called middle-class tax cuts. not $2 trillion for the middle class. not $2 trillion for the struggling bottom third of america's families. not $2 trillion for helping diminish the size of our classrooms in k-12, not $2 trillion dedicated to wiping out the high cost of college, not $2 trillion dedicated to health care and our clinics, not $2 trillion dedicated to infrastructure creating jobs and building a better economy in the future. no, $2 trillion to the richest

americans to increase wealth a inequality. to increase income inequality. how much is that $2 trillion? can you even get your hands around that number? divided by the number of americans, men, women, and children, that's $6,000 for every man, woman, and child in america that this body under this republican leadership decided to give to the wealthiest americans rather than making such resources available for the foundations, for our families, education, health care, good jobs, improved infrastructure. well, that kind of wraps up ten items from throughout 2017 in which this body constantly ignored the mission of our constitution, our we the people mission, and chose instead to be government of, by, and for the

powerful. how about this? how about we have a new year's resolution for 2018 in which we decide to actually honor the constitution, the vision of the constitution, and address the needs of america, the foundation for families to thrive, good jobs, education, and health care in 2018. then we'd be doing our job and then we'd be honoring our constitution. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pa pa.

mr. toomey: thank -- from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: thank you. i rise to speak about what our tax reform legislation actually does. i want to start by welcoming in advance the president of the united states to pennsylvania. the president is coming to pittsburgh, pennsylvania, to talk about the specifics of our tax reform and the effect that it's having. i really wish i could be there with him, but we don't know when we're going to finish up here, as the president knows very, very well. we might be here well into the evening. and i have multiple obligations i've long been committed to in addition to juggling that. unfortunately, i will not be able to get to pittsburgh with the president, but i hope to have another opportunity to celebrate this victory for pennsylvanians and americans because that's what it is. you know, mr. president, when we set out to accomplish the biggest tax reform in at least

31 years, we had two big goals. the first was to make sure that we implemented a direct tax cut for working families, for middle-income families, for the overwhelming majority of families and individuals that we all represent. so that was goal number one, make sure we cut taxes for the people who are working every day living paycheck to paycheck, working hard and making america what it is. item number one. the second thing we wanted to do was to reform this -- what was a completely archaic, unbelievably complicated, inefficient, and really terrible business tax code that had become arguably one of the very worst in the world and one that was systematically discouraging investment in the united states. so those were the two goals, direct tax relief for ordinary americans and making the business tax code competitive.

mr. president, i am thrilled to be able to say that i believe we achieved both goals. first of all, it's a simple, straightforward factual matter that we cut taxes on the vast overwhelming majority of taxpayers, the families and individuals who pay taxes. that's just a factual matter. that's easy to confirm. and, of course, that has the effect of increasing the take-home pay for anybody who's working. you can increase your take-home pay by either getting a raise from your employer or by paying less taxes on what you earn or both. and we knew for sure we were cutting taxes. that's going to be a take-home pay increase. but i predicted at the time that we would also be creating an environment where there would be upward pressure on wages, where over time we would start to see people getting bonuses and pay rate increases, wage increases

because we were creating a dynamic in which employers would be competing more and more for workers and so in effect they would be bidding up the compensation for the workers. so that's what i predicted. and i was confident that that would happen within some number of months or a year or so. so i have to come down to the floor today, mr. president, and confess that i was wrong, very wrong about the timing of that. you see, we didn't have to wait three or six or 12 months for our constituents, the people we represent, to see the benefits in the form of higher wages. they started happening immediately. i mean within days. it's actually been stunning. and in one month -- it's about one month since we passed this sweeping tax reform.