Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the confirmation of Mr. Frank Bisignano, who is nominated to be the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. The Social Security Administration has the significant responsibility of overseeing the Social Security Program, which provides monthly benefits to millions of seniors, individuals with disabilities, and their families. The Social Security Administration also oversees the Supplemental Security Income Program and issues Social Security numbers and cards, among other critical workloads. I am confident that Mr. Bisignano has the experience needed to lead this important Agency. He has more than 30 years of executive leadership experience in banks and financial institutions. He currently serves as the chairman of the board and the chief executive officer of Fiserv, Incorporated, a leader in payments and financial technology. During his nomination hearing, Mr. Bisignano committed to improving customer service at the Social Security Administration, including by bringing down wait times for the Agency's national 800 number and for claims decisions; ensuring that individuals can interact with the Social Security Administration in the way they prefer, whether in person, by phone, or online; and improving the Social Security Administration's payment accuracy. During Mr. Bisignano's nomination hearing, concerns were raised regarding his alleged connections to DOGE's work at the Social Security Administration. These allegations were raised in an anonymous letter dated March 24, 2025, the day before the nomination hearing. The allegations focused on the frequency and details of communications between the nominee and Social Security Administration officials. Mr. Bisignano addressed these allegations during the hearing and responded in writing as part of the questions for the record. He has stated clearly that he does not currently have a role at the Social Security Administration and was not part of the decision-making process led by the Acting Commissioner, Lee Dudek, about Social Security operations, personnel, or management. The Social Security Administration needs steady, Senate-confirmed leadership. Mr. Bisignano would bring his decades-long focus on customer service and operational excellence to the Social Security Administration. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in voting to confirm Mr. Bisignano to serve as the next Commissioner of Social Security.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, briefly to respond, we worked very closely with our colleagues across the aisle to try to vet this anonymous letter and get the information necessary to evaluate it. We are still willing to look at it.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall vote begin immediately.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the resolution. Before I get into my prepared remarks, let me just make it clear. What we are doing here today is following a law, IEEPA, which gave authority to the President of the United States to declare an emergency and gave Congress the authority to reject that declaration of the emergency by a vote in Congress. The President has declared that emergency under the authority of that law, and this resolution has been brought to reject the declaration of that emergency. That is what we are debating today, and that is what the vote in Congress is about. I appreciate that many of us in this Chamber have heard from constituents concerned about the economic impact of the tariffs. All of us are watching this issue closely and working with the administration to find ways to minimize its impact on Americans. We should also be working with the administration to address a shared objective: more opportunities for Americans in foreign markets and an end to discriminatory practices in foreign markets against Americans, against our farmers, and against our businesses. The President's decision to pause the full reciprocal tariffs for 90 days, other than for China, was a prudent move in that respect. It helped mitigate the impact. It discouraged retaliation but also continued the serious negotiations by our trading partners to address longstanding trading barriers faced by Americans in foreign markets. I don't believe there is anybody in Congress who would deny that for decades, nations around the globe have put unjustified tariffs on American producers, on American products. We should not undermine these negotiations by the President at this critical juncture. The administration has shared that serious negotiations are proceeding with 18 countries at a minimum now and with more to follow shortly. In the coming weeks, the U.S. Trade Representative will meet with the Senate advisory group on negotiations and the Finance Committee to discuss these negotiations in detail. I encourage my colleagues to trust the President, at least until they have had the opportunity to hear from his trade team about their efforts. As the White House recently argued in its statement of administrative policy, this resolution, if we passed it, would signal to U.S. trading partners that they can continue to discriminate against U.S. exports with impunity and would signal that the United States is not serious about addressing structural imbalances in the global economy and the conditions giving rise to the threat to U.S. national security and economy. Disapproving this emergency will undercut the serious negotiations that are underway, which are also yielding results. For example, India has already suspended its digital services tax on U.S. companies. The President is a good negotiator, and he deserves more time and our support. Ending these negotiations at their inception benefits only one actor: China. China will see its full reciprocal tariff limited immediately without offering any concessions to addressing longstanding, bipartisan grievances. Moreover, China will benefit because its trade negotiations will continue, while ours will sputter out. For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to vote in opposition to this resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time on H.J. Res. 75 be expired and the Senate vote on passage of H.J. Res. 75 at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader on Thursday, May 1; further, that the Senate execute the order of April 28 with respect to S.J. Res. 49, that all time be expired at 5:25 p.m. today, that the joint resolution be read a third time and the Senate vote on the passage of the joint resolution; finally, that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CRAPO. For the information of all Senators, we will have two rollcall votes at 5:25 today, first on passage of S.J. Res. 49, followed immediately by the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 31.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I have nine requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks that have just been given by my colleague from Kentucky. I think the main message we need to hear there, and what I am going to talk about, is that the problem we have in America is not that our taxes are too high or too low, but that our spending is too high. And Republicans, today, I am confident, will be unified in delivering, as President Trump calls it, ``one big beautiful bill'' for the American people. What does this bill include? The fiscal year 2025 budget resolution fulfills promises to secure America's borders, increase our national defense, unleash our energy potential, and finally start to get our house in order. I agree completely with my colleague: We have got to reduce our spending. And this bill contains a target with a minimum floor of $2 trillion in spending reduction in our Federal budget. Importantly, it also lays the groundwork to make permanent and build on the 2017 Trump tax cuts so that American families can keep more of their hard-earned money to stop financing Washington's spending problem. Our conference is united in preventing an over $4 trillion tax hike on American families and businesses and delivering additional tax relief to those who have suffered for 4 years now under inflation. We are united in making this proven tax policy permanent to provide the certainty that businesses need to make long-term investments that drive growth and stability for our families as they save and plan for the future. We are also unified in our resolve to restore fiscal sanity and know that the best way to do so isn't to tax hard-working Americans more. It is to spend less. While many tend to focus on the policy disagreements that occur--as they should in these Halls--the reality is that Republicans are completely unified in delivering on President Trump's agenda, a major portion of which is to restore the economic prosperity experienced under his Presidency. Let's just look back for a minute about the bill that we are trying to extend and make permanent now. Most Americans don't pay attention to the minutia of tax policy, but if you ask them, the majority will tell you that they would rather keep more of their money than let the government spend it. And that is exactly what the 2017 tax cuts did. Those Trump tax cuts lowered tax rates for the overwhelming majority of Americans, simplified the Tax Code, and encouraged companies to do business in the United States instead of abroad. In addition to lowering rates across the board, it provided targeted tax relief to the middle-class working families by doubling the standard deduction and the child tax credit, and to small businesses by providing a new 20-percent deduction, enabling America's entrepreneurs to create new jobs, increase workers' wages, and reinvest in their business. The majority of the benefits from the Trump tax cuts, contrary to what you have heard all day from the other side, flow to working middle-class families, the bottom 50 percent of earners receiving the largest reduction in average tax rates at 17.3 percent. Contrary to the claims that you have heard all day on the floor today that benefits were only for billionaires and corporations, the Trump tax cuts actually made the Tax Code even more progressive, meaning that the highest income earners today pay a greater share of all taxes than they did before. And if we can extend this tax cut, that will continue to be the case. The generational reforms we made in 2017 were designed to strengthen investment, boost economic growth, increase take-home pay, reduce poverty, and make America strong. And they worked. Not only did taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned money, but a growing economy powered median household income to an all-time high. The labor market improved, workers saw record wage growth, and the unemployment rate fell dramatically to 3.5 percent, the lowest in 50 years. The lowest income workers experienced the largest wage growth. There was a capital formation explosion in the United States and corporation inversions-- corporations leaving America--stopped and became a thing of the past, as companies came back home to America and became the place to form capital and do business again. All Americans reap the benefits of a booming economy. Extending this current, proven tax policy and building on it is the best way to restore economic prosperity and opportunity for working families, many of whom are struggling to recover from the historic inflation of the last 4 years. Tonight, I expect we will hear once again the politics of fear, as my Democrat colleagues claim all sorts of dire things that will happen, including that we are just going to cut taxes for the wealthy so that we can do our own projects and benefit the wealthy and corporations. This attack has been used for nearly a decade, and it is just as false now as it has been in the past. Americans should not be scared by these falsehoods. What they should be alarmed by is what my colleagues and I committed to preventing: the largest tax hike in history that will occur if we do not extend the current Trump tax cuts. This chart shows, of all these dollars of tax relief that we are talking about, contrary to the argument that they go to the wealthy, $2.6 trillion of this tax hike goes to people in households making less than $400,000 a year. And the vast majority of that goes to people making in the middle, lower, and upper middle-income categories. Families of four making $80,000 will see a $1,700 tax hike if we don't extend this tax relief. And 20 million small businesses will see their rates go up to 43.4 percent. The child tax credit will be cut in half. The standard deduction will be cut in half. The lowest income earners in America are the ones who are benefitting the most from this legislation today. Republicans are united in our efforts to make this work. Now, one of the things we are focusing on is making the tax cuts permanent. Not only are we focused on extending these policies, but we are committing to make this growth in our economy permanent so we don't have to face these dire consequences in the future. Permanent tax policies promote stability and lead to more pronounced economic effects than temporary ones. Making these tax cuts permanent will provide businesses with the certainty and the stability they need to make the long-term investments that drive growth, accelerate productivity, and increase prosperity across all segments of our economy. Studies find that a permanent extension of the TCJA would increase long-run GDP by 1.1 percent and increase after-tax income for all Americans of all income levels. Making the small business deduction alone permanent is estimated to create 1.2 million jobs annually over the first 10 years, increasing to 2.4 million jobs in the long run. The President's Council of Economic Advisers just released an analysis that says extending the Trump tax cuts, combined with other pro-growth economic policies that we are pursuing now, would boost the level of short-run GDP growth by 3.3 to 3.8 percent and long-run real GDP growth by 2.6 to 3.6 percent. Now what does that mean? It means we are going to see that it will raise annual real wages by $2,100 to $3,300 per worker, increase real annual take-home pay for median-income households with two children by roughly $4,000 to $5,000, save over 4 million full-time equivalent jobs from being destroyed, and facilitate $100 billion of investment in distressed communities. The analysis also projects that extending these tax cuts, ``together with full suite of the Trump Administration policies--such as deregulation, which the CEA previously estimated would add 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points to real GDP growth over a decade--is expected to result in 3.0 percent annual real GDP growth rates over the next 10 years.'' Now, what does that mean? According to CEA, that 3.0 percent growth in our GDP will result in $4.1 trillion of additional revenue to the Treasury to help deal with our national debt--$4.1 trillion. To unleash that growth, the best way to make these tax cuts permanent is by using a current policy baseline. This is the scoring method that more accurately reflects reality. The average American easily understands that there is a difference between a tax increase and a spending cut. However, there is an inherent bias in Congress's scoring process, where tax policy is treated differently than spending policy. If tax rates are scheduled to increase, like they are right now if we don't act, preventing that tax hike is counted as a ``cost'' in uncollected future revenue. But many spending programs are assumed to be extended beyond their expiration. So the spending just continues and continues unabated, which the budget rules say don't have any ``cost.'' That is what we are trying to fix today in this bill. In fact, there is $2.5 trillion in spending that is automatically extended by our budget rules over the next 10 years, under a current policy baseline, that they currently use. Even the Obama White House has used a current policy baseline for tax policy. They recognized that there is a difference between increasing taxes and cutting spending. In 2013, the Obama White House stated that a ``current policy baseline is the appropriate reference point since it measures changes relative to the status quo, rather than the mix of expiring provisions and policy changes that would likely never be implemented.'' Interpreted, what they said was exactly what I have been saying. President Obama and his team said: You can't say that just keeping the tax rates where they are and not raising them is the same as spending more money. We need to level the playing field and sever the connection that creates a tax-and-spend budgeting process in Congress, and that is another thing we are going to do today. Critics who have been strangely silent over the years as trillions of dollars in spending has been automatically extended under a current policy baseline now take offense to correcting that bias toward forcing Federal spending. As applied to only the tax policy, those critics assert that we will be increasing the deficit by using a current policy baseline or we are using this baseline to hide the cost. Let me be very clear: We are not hiding the score that JCT and CBO would assign to the bill under a current law baseline. In fact, I like to see that score. It shows the amount of tax increase that my colleagues on the other side are trying to push onto the American people. But let's be fully transparent: Both an estimate based on the current policy and one based on the current law will be released when we consider this bill on the Senate floor, and then Americans can see what kind of savings have been given to them by not raising their taxes. Under our current existing tax regime, the revenue to the GDP ratio this year will be about 17.1 percent, meaning we will raise taxes for the Federal Treasury under our current tax policy of about 17.1 percent of GDP on a current policy baseline. It will also be about the same next year if we don't let the taxes go up, meaning that the revenue will not appreciably change. Yet my colleagues on the other side say it is going to spike a hole in the deficit because--why? Because they won't get their hands on that $4 trillion of new tax revenue out of the American people. This would not increase debt relative to GDP; it would simply prevent a tax increase. And we need to be honest about what those tax increases would and would not do. Those who say we should let taxes go back up say: Wow. Then we can use it to pay down the national debt some more. Every tax increase that Congress has adopted for as long as I can remember was not used to pay down the national debt. It was used by Congress to spend more money. We have to take that pressure off of spending as well. Congress does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. Senate Republicans are united in our desire to take concrete steps to address our deficit and get our fiscal house in order. Because the bill we are debating today is within the confines of reconciliation, the scores and numbers that will be discussing don't reflect that full fiscal picture. In order to have an honest discussion of what needs to be done, there is an acknowledgement that needs to be made that other factors are also at play that can generate economic growth and reductions in spending. What am I talking about? Economic growth. As I indicated in one of the charts we just had up, the estimates from the CEA are, if we make the tax cuts policy permanent, the confidence it will give our economy and the boost that it will give our economy in tax incentive policy will grow the economy by as much as $4 trillion of new revenue to the Federal Treasury. The President is also directing impacts in the government through his efforts and the Department of Government Efficiency to aggressively cut waste, fraud, and abuse from our government programs. Spending on Federal Government programs has ballooned in recent years. We have a responsibility to evaluate these spending increases and ensure that these programs work effectively and efficiently for everyone. The President has also undertaken and will likely pursue more deregulation. Deregulation has had as big an impact on revenues as economic growth as tax policy has in the past, and we should recognize that. The bottom line is that in addition to the action that Congress can take, there are activities that the President is currently engaged in that will impact our fiscal policy by either reducing spending or increasing revenue, and we should also take those into consideration. Congress must begin the process of restoring fiscal sanity by achieving deficit reduction and spending reforms as the best way to achieve that goal. In contrast, imposing the largest tax increase in our country's history would be counterproductive by easing the gliding path and making it easier for more spending. We will have a very robust debate in the weeks ahead about the best way to deliver on President Trump's agenda, and I look forward to those discussions. The budget resolution unlocks the process for us to strengthen our national security, secure our borders, permanently extend the Trump tax cuts, and provide additional middle-class tax relief. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, the Democrats claim that the Republicans are gearing up for a so-called class war and that extending the 2017 tax cuts is a handout for the wealthy. We have heard this so many times. It is no more true now than it has been the last umpteen times. The Trump tax cuts reduce taxes for an overwhelming majority of Americans, and middle-class households receive the largest proportional benefits of the cuts. Those tax cuts also made our Tax Code more progressive. The highest income earners paid a greater share of taxes than they did before 2017. On top of lower tax rates across the board, those tax cuts provided targeted middle-class tax relief by doubling both the standard deduction and the child tax credit. If those cuts expire this year, the middle-class families will be hit the hardest. The average family of four making $80,000 will see their taxes increase by $1,700. In fact, more than $2.6 trillion of the tax hike, which would result from failing to extend these cuts, would fall on households making less than $400,000 and, primarily, lower and middle-income families. While Democrats attempt to distract from these claims by saying they are tax cuts for the wealthy, the Republicans remain focused on preventing tax hikes on working families and investing in American jobs. I encourage a ``no'' vote, and I would be glad to voice vote it if we could agree on that. Vote on Amendment No. 1737

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I could just say what I said the last time, but I want to give a few more statistics. Just last year, the Joint Committee on Taxation reported that the top 0.01 percent of taxpayers paid an average Federal income tax rate of 30.6 percent in 2019, compared to 5.3 percent for those in the 50th and 90th percentiles and a negative 2.2 percent for those in the bottom 50 percent. It is indisputable that most of the Federal tax burden is paid by the high earners. The top 10 percent of filers paid 72 percent of Federal income taxes. The top 1 percent paid more in Federal income taxes than the bottom 90 percent combined. In addition, the voluntary tax compliance remains high. In other words, as I said before, the Trump tax cuts made the Tax Code more progressive, not less. The American people deserve more than empty platitudes about billionaires and tax hike proposals that even a complete Democrat Congress could not pass under President Biden. I urge a ``no'' vote. Vote on Amendment No. 1977

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I think it is pretty clear that, no matter what the taxes are on the upper income brackets, it would be claimed that they aren't high enough. But let me just give a few more statistics. Most of the Federal tax burden is paid by higher earners. Indeed, the top 1 percent of taxpayers pays more Federal income taxes than the bottom 90 percent combined. The tax cuts that we are talking about make the code more progressive, as I have said, and the highest income earners pay a greater share of taxes than they did before 2017. Federal tax collections have been near all-time highs since the Trump taxes were enacted, and the voluntary compliance rate remains high and stable. Higher taxes serve as disincentives to work and save and invest. The American people deserve better. We are committed to helping all hard-working taxpayers get ahead, and I will work with anybody who is ready to focus on helping protect our families in America. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, again, my colleagues continue to argue that our now-wealthy companies are showered with an ever-increasing tax break and need to pay their fair share. I would point out that the TCJA that we are talking about in this legislation doesn't even touch the tax rates either way with regard to corporations. Leaving that aside, before these tax cuts back in 2017, the United States had a 35-percent corporate tax rate--one of the highest in the world. Companies were fleeing America to do their capital formation in different parts of the world. After we did what everyone in those days agreed was an important reform of our business tax system, we had an end to corporate inversions, and capital started flowing back into the United States with the investments from companies around the world. We saw the greatest and strongest economy that we have seen in our lifetimes develop with the growth in jobs, wages, benefits, and a reduction in unemployment, and the wealth of the average family in America reached all-time highs.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I guess I have to say that this legislation doesn't deal with tariffs. But I am interested that the minority leader wants to turn the discussion to tariffs because they don't like the way the discussion on taxes is going. Some would want to distract us from these important issues that we are dealing with and try to shift this decision, but most importantly, none of President Trump's tariffs rely on any authorities made from any--either this or prior--reconciliation bill, nor are they contingent on anything happening in the one we are considering. It also bears noting that any enforcement effort to open foreign markets for our farmers, workers, and businesses is backed by tariffs. What President Trump has said is that the existing tariff efforts to open markets for our Americans are not moving fast enough, and he is seeking to create opportunities. Under President Biden, there was literally no enforcement, in fact, no negotiations to open trade across this globe. We can and should have a debate about how we should engage in effective trade, but that is not this bill. I encourage a ``no'' vote.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Everybody knows the reconciliation bill cannot deal with adjustments to the Social Security trust fund. As to efforts to try to deal with the management of the Social Security Administration, I recommend that what we do is to confirm the President's nominee to run the Social Security Administration, who stated in our committee hearing that he was going to be focused on making sure that Social Security worked efficiency and effectively so that it delivered the proper benefits to all beneficiaries. That is what we ought to do, is to expeditiously move President Trump's nominee to be the next Administrator of the Social Security Administration.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, once again, we have the politics of threatening that some dire consequence is going to occur as a result of this legislation, or at least these instructions. Once again, President Trump has been clear: Any reforms to Medicare or Medicaid must not reduce patient benefits. In fact, section 3003 of the budget resolution reaffirms this commitment. The budget resolution gives the Senate maximum flexibility to meet this objective. This amendment is unnecessary, and I urge my colleagues to vote no. Vote on Amendment No. 1693

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, once again, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Once again, it is a list of dire consequences that are not happening and are not in this legislation. The creation of such a point of order is outside the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee and, therefore, not an appropriate item for inclusion in a budget resolution. Adopting this amendment would jeopardize the privilege of the budget resolution. It is another example of the kind of things that are being brought up that are not included in the bill. I urge my colleagues to vote no. Vote on Amendment No. 1661

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, once again, President Trump has repeatedly stated he opposes cuts to Social Security. Section 3003 of this resolution also underscores Republicans' commitment to protect and preserve Social Security. The phone line issue is one related to scammers seeking to fraudulently obtain Social Security benefits to continue using their tactics unabated. The SSA needs to continue adapting as well. Based on stakeholder feedback, the SSA is taking steps to ensure its efforts to prevent fraud do not impede Social Security beneficiaries from receiving the benefits they have earned. President Trump's nominee to lead the Social Security Administration has also committed to improving the Agency's phone service and ensuring that individuals can interact with the SSA. What we need to do is to stop delaying the nomination and move forward. I urge a ``no'' vote. Vote on Amendment No. 1529

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, President Trump has been clear: Medicare and Medicaid must not reduce benefits in this bill. Section 3003 of the resolution confirms that commitment. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, unfortunately, my colleague's amendment is not necessary. We have the maximum flexibility in this resolution to do the appropriate tax policy once we are able to get these instructions. I look forward to working with her to get the right kind of tax policy into the bill as we move forward in working on it. Because of that, this amendment is unnecessary, and I urge my colleagues to vote no. Vote on Amendment No. 1602

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, once again, a long list of fearful, dire consequences that aren't in the bill. President Trump has been clear that any reforms to Medicare and Medicaid must not reduce patient benefits. Section 3003 of the budget resolution reaffirms this commitment. I urge my colleagues to vote no. Vote on Amendment No. 1989

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, you have heard it before. It is probably fitting that we end on this today before final passage. But contrary to what you have heard today, extending the Trump tax cuts would prevent a multitrillion-dollar tax hike on millions of middle- and working-class Americans. To be clear, if the Trump tax cuts expire at the end of this year, taxes will go up on families and small businesses across the entire income spectrum, hitting middle-income earners hard. The reality is the Trump tax cuts reduce taxes for the overwhelming majority of Americans, and middle-class households receive the largest proportional benefits of the cuts. The highest income earners, actually, pay a greater share of the total taxes than they did before. Because of that, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 2152

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to invoke cloture on Dr. Mehmet Oz, who is nominated to serve as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS. The CMS Administrator is responsible for overseeing healthcare programs that cover tens of millions of Americans, including Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. At his hearing, Dr. Oz spoke strongly about his desire to modernize the CMS and encourage a healthy lifestyle for all Americans. His vision for treating the underlying causes of chronic disease and equipping providers with innovative technologies to serve patients will also be a much needed sea change at CMS. I am confident that his years spent as a leading physician and public health advocate make him duly qualified to accomplish these goals, and I look forward to working with him, if confirmed. Dr. Oz clearly met the standard of the Finance Committee's arduous nomination process, and I thank him for the diligence and accessibility he displayed during the extensive meetings he had with committee members and staff, in addition to responding to hundreds of questions for the record. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in advancing his nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAPO. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Reserving the right to object.